NAPA Platinum?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: asharris7
I'm sure they will either fix their typo, or make them more efficient after hearing the feedback


I don't think it's a "typo". Many members here have called the WIX Tech Dept and have asked many times if their advertised "50% @ 20 microns" efficiency spec (beta ratio) on their website is a mistake. The answer is always, "No, that's what it really is".
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
These days I pretty much just use PureOnes and Ultras ... but now PureOnes are on the "tearing watch list", so it will be Ultra and WIX/NAPA Golds unless I decide to use up the 4 or 5 PureOnes in my filter stash.


Can you get the Purolator Synthetic? It doesn't suffer from the tearing issue, and it still has the textured grip we all love.
 
so far i am not aware of the synthetic purolators tearing but i would not take the chance their other filters tear and their quality does not seem so good lately. Be safe stay far away from purolators.
Wix is a better filter in my book but its also priced pretty high. On the other hand fram ultra is pretty high at wal mart being $8.35
 
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
On the other hand fram ultra is pretty high at wal mart being $8.35.


For what you're getting in the Ultra, that's a lot of bang for your buck.
 
Originally Posted By: asharris7
^coming from the guy who uses an A02.... I kid, I kid lol


Ha, very true! Not to worry, though, I've got 3 Ultras on deck for the Ody!
 
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
so far i am not aware of the synthetic purolators tearing but i would not take the chance their other filters tear and their quality does not seem so good lately. Be safe stay far away from purolators.


By that logic, you should also avoid the Fram Ultra because the basic Fram is a piece of garbage with very little media that's prone to collapse under high flow.

The Purolator synthetic is to the Purolator Classic just as the Ultra is to the ExtraGuard- that is to say "no relation whatsoever." OK, maybe each uses the same bypass valve as its cheaper brother, but the media is made of a TOTALLY different media, by a TOTALLY different process. Failure of an ExtraGuard or Classic does not imply a single thing about the quality of an Ultra or a Purolator Synthetic.
 
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).


You've got it wrong ... there have been many dead horse beating threads about that already. 20.1 micron is greater than 20, so it all practical purposes it is "@ 20 microns".
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).


You've got it wrong ... there have been many dead horse beating threads about that already. 20.1 micron is greater than 20, so it all practical purposes it is "@ 20 microns".


20.1 is bigger than 20 and so is 100. And yes, it is a dead horse, and you beat it every day, in every thread you can, with your pet interpretation.
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).


You've got it wrong ... there have been many dead horse beating threads about that already. 20.1 micron is greater than 20, so it all practical purposes it is "@ 20 microns".


20.1 is bigger than 20 and so is 100. And yes, it is a dead horse, and you beat it every day, in every thread you can, with your pet interpretation.


You more or less call Fram a liar. Your bias is clear and IMO Zee wastes his time commenting to you when you just ignore the details shared by Fram on how they test their filters by ISO tests.
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I am NOT calling Fram a liar. They say >20, and I take their word for it!



OK, you misinterpret (deliberately).
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).


You've got it wrong ... there have been many dead horse beating threads about that already. 20.1 micron is greater than 20, so it all practical purposes it is "@ 20 microns".


20.1 is bigger than 20 and so is 100. And yes, it is a dead horse, and you beat it every day, in every thread you can, with your pet interpretation.


Well certainly, and that's why the Fram spec basically means "@20 microns". It obviously filters even better than 99% for particles much larger than 20 microns.

You're also wrong about your "skewed perception" of the other stuff you've mentioned also.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).


Already been explained in great detail in other threads.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).


Already been explained in great detail in other threads.

I don't understand why when quoting a poster one would put their response/comment in with the quoted poster. I've had that intentionally done once to me on this board relatively recently and responded by asking that poster not to do it again. It seems deceptive to me, and dnewton in the past has mentioned not doing it, and that he'd help anyone having difficulty using the quote feature. My .02

As for comment, not sure what 'great detail' is being referred to . I've read the answer previously and what it boiled down to as posted here is that Fram uses > because of some 'legal considerations.' What that means exactly, I'm not sure.

That said, it is relevant imo to note for comparison that other filters and filter manufacturers including Amsoil and Purolator to name a couple (I'm sure there are others) have no such reticence about using @ when listing their filter efficiencies. Below is the much posted Amsoil's ISO chart and the efficiency method can be noted as well as on the Amsoil filter website.

eao_efficiency_500px.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).


Already been explained in great detail in other threads.



I did not say that. Please don't edit the attributions.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I am NOT calling Fram a liar. They say >20, and I take their word for it!



OK, you misinterpret (deliberately).



No, I'm an engineer. I interpret literally. I do not engage in hopes and speculation and hearsay when reading specifications.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I am NOT calling Fram a liar. They say >20, and I take their word for it!



OK, you misinterpret (deliberately).



No, I'm an engineer. I interpret literally. I do not engage in hopes and speculation and hearsay when reading specifications.


I'm an engineer also, and its a question of when ">" vs ">=" actually matters and when it doesn't. In this case it doesn't. In the real world, "Lim(filtration) as particle size decreases infinitely close to 20 microns = 90%" means exactly the same performance in an engine as "Filtration given particle size >= 20 micron = 90%.

Its not a matter of "hopes and speculation." I couldn't care less about Fram as a company and I don't have some particular favoritism for their filter. But a spec is a spec, and theirs wins, regardless of a missing "=" sign or not!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top