Laws of Phisics -- Fram Ultra

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The media Wix uses is "capable" of 90% + efficiency, the poor design construction leads to internal leakage during iso testing.


Interesting Memphis.....was this published some place or has someone shown an inherent flaw in these synthetic Wix filters that would allow "internal leakage" and thus, yield poor filtration efficiency? Just curious where this came from.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The media Wix uses is "capable" of 90% + efficiency, the poor design construction leads to internal leakage during iso testing.


Interesting Memphis.....was this published some place or has someone shown an inherent flaw in these synthetic Wix filters that would allow "internal leakage" and thus, yield poor filtration efficiency? Just curious where this came from.


Never heard that theory before. I doubt their filters are leaking internally. If WIX filter designers thought their filters were going to do 90% @ 20 microns during ISO testing and they came back as 50% @ 20 microns, they would be looking into why, fix it and retest to get the numbers they designed for.
 
You guys can figure it out I've already said too much. I have no idea why Wix is okay with letting their filters do 50% efficiency at 20 microns. Other companies are testing them and they "barely" hit the 50% mark under ISO 4548-12 testing. Obviously I can't include any data from this, so believe it if you want, but if they were able to hit a higher efficiency you can be sure they would claim it on either the box or website.

Also that's the problem ZeeOSix, they never designed their filters to hit 90% efficiency but their media is capable of it with proper sealing. I am still un clear on all the details but it's probably a combination of the bypass valve and seal at the tapping plate.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
You guys can figure it out I've already said too much. I have no idea why Wix is okay with letting their filters do 50% efficiency at 20 microns. Other companies are testing them and they "barely" hit the 50% mark under ISO 4548-12 testing. Obviously I can't include any data from this, so believe it if you want, but if they were able to hit a higher efficiency you can be sure they would claim it on either the box or website.

Also that's the problem ZeeOSix, they never designed their filters to hit 90% efficiency but their media is capable of it with proper sealing. I am still un clear on all the details but it's probably a combination of the bypass valve and seal at the tapping plate.


Unless you have firm data that says the WIX XP (full synthetic) has bad efficiency from a leaky design, I'm going to have to chalk it up to just inefficient media. I highly doubt WIX is going to continue to make a filter that leaks internally and gives them the crumby 50% @ 20 micron efficiency performance.
 
Maybe folks like me are the problem.......I got in on the Napa sale on their Platinum filters mainly because I trust Napa filters in general (albeit Wix or whatever). At $8 I figured what the heck, I'll let all the experts fight it out over whether they're junk or not and see what shakes out. I'll probably even let it go for a long drain interval. So far I'm sleeping pretty good at night. I just can't fathom they'd design, test, and offer a long OCI filter that truly sucked in comparison to the competition, let alone in comparison to their own lower tier filters, but we'll see I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Where is purolater here? Best flow rate
Trolling.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Colt45ws


IIRC, Fram Ultra is Synthetic blend.



Last time I checked the Ultra Guard is a full synthetic media oil filter and the Tough Guard is a synthetic blend.
 
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
Originally Posted By: Colt45ws


IIRC, Fram Ultra is Synthetic blend.



Last time I checked the Ultra Guard is a full synthetic media oil filter and the Tough Guard is a synthetic blend.


You are correct about the media but it's just called a Fram Ultra not Ultra guard. Ultra guard was a name for an Ac delco filter that used synthetic media and is no longer in production.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
Originally Posted By: Colt45ws


IIRC, Fram Ultra is Synthetic blend.



Last time I checked the Ultra Guard is a full synthetic media oil filter and the Tough Guard is a synthetic blend.


You are correct about the media but it's just called a Fram Ultra not Ultra guard. Ultra guard was a name for an Ac delco filter that used synthetic media and is no longer in production.


Mixed that up with the X2 Extended Guards they used to market (and kept the same XG part numbers for the Ultra Synthetic)
 
What a load of [censored]! Fanboy talk at it's finest!

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
You guys can figure it out I've already said too much.


LOL! You haven't said anything, at least nothing factual. What a cop out.

Quote:
I have no idea


You should have stopped there.

Quote:
they never designed their filters to hit 90% efficiency but their media is capable of it with proper sealing.


Who at WIX told you this?

I never cut a filter but I have a brand new XP I will cut open. You do the same with your precious Fram and we'll compare pictures. Then you can point out in HD where the design flaws are. Deal?
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Doesn't the basic laws of physics DEMAND that you can't have ultra fine filtration and ultra high flow rates?? ...

Use our air filters in our cars for example: when the filter is brand new, the flow rate is at it's highest, but this is when the filter efficiency is at its worst. As the filter gets dirty, the flow rate decreases, but the efficiency increases.



Because you are not using a proper definition to the application, nor understanding the limits as a whole.


What is "fine filtration" in you context? Yes, there are some filters from Fram (and others) that have a very high efficiency (99% or there about). But at what particle size? 20um, generally. And the media (both the cellulose/glass TG and syn media FU) has MORE than enough ability to pass fluid; typically about 2x the volume that the pump is going to push. Most filters can flow around 10gpm or more; that's more than the pump will deliver. So, yes, if you understand how the situation is set up, then filters can be both "fine" and "high flow". Now, if you asked if they could be 99% at 2um, and flow 100gpm, given their current sizes, then you'd be out of luck there; no TG or FU is going to be able to do that.

When you consider true BP filter elements, they are designed for very high efficiency at very small particle size, with a concession to low flow. But if you desired, you can run 10 of them in parallel (10 x 10% flow for each for a total of 100% flow) and you'd have what you needed, although you'd struggle to find a place to mount them all under the hood!

So the difference is that a FF filter is "fine filtration" and "high volume" in context.



In your air filter example, you are generally correct. But what you fail to conceive, as do most folks, is where those criteria start at, especially the former of flow rate. Most folks wrongly think that an air filter is sold in the box at a volumetric flow such that it's delivered to you at 100% of the design need when new. THAT IS WRONG! An air filter is grossly over capacitized in terms of flow, so that as it ages and loads up, it still does not restrict flow below the "need" of the engine. Allow me to throw in some hypothetical numbers ...
Assume an engine needs a MAX of 750 cfm at WOT to produce the designed intent of max power. When they spec an air filter, they don't spec a filter that is 750-800cfm out of the box; they choose a filter that might provide 1200-1300 cfm out of the box. That way, even as it ages, the diminished flow capacity of the air filter due to ever increasing loading does not drop below the intended total max draw of the engine. It is a false presumption that most folks make. Even at the edge of it's intended FCI, the air filter probably would flow 900 cfm; well above the 750cfm required by the engine. So while you can see that the air filter lost 25% of it's "new" flow rate (from 1200 down to 900), it's still OVER the engine requirement by 20% (900 is > 750 by 20%). Again - these numbers are made up, but the CONCEPT is REAL!


Now, most assuredly, there are conditions that are going to send this upside down, but that is NOT by design intent, but rather neglect. If you ignore a filter change (air, oil, etc) to a point where you send the filter into a condition where it actually does grossly alter the flow, that is NOT the fault of the filter; it's YOUR fault for exceeding a design condition! There is no filter (air, oil, tranny, etc) that is under-capacitized from the OEM or aftermarket supplier. They are all grossly over-sized (in terms of performance to design spec, not "size") so there is a wide margin of error built into the product. There are conditions (total neglect; total abuse; total sludger; etc) that may exceed the ability of the filter, but that's not "normal" by any means.

This entire topic is actually about capacity; will the product have enough total ability to perform (both in flow capacity and contamination holding capacity, at the designed efficiency beta) such that the design intent is upheld? Filters are sold with a huge excess capacity in mind, so that as they age, they still are capable of providing the required flow and efficiency that the OEM had in mind. They will catch the intended size of particulate at the required efficiency, at well above the needed volumetric flow. They are designed in terms of efficiency and flow to exceed demand at worst case of the "normal" expectation.

I personally have run every-day filters such as the WCOD (white can of death; aka tearolator) for 10k miles and MC FL400S for 15k miles. Upon autopsy there was nothing horrid that happened inside; they were fine. I ran them for 2x and 3x the "recommended" distance, and they did their job well. The filter dissection was OK; the UOAs were great. I am NOT stating that this is smart for all people to do; you must understand the risks and benefits. But the reason I did it was to PROVE that there is a HUGE amount of excess capacity even in "normal" oils and filters. Therefore, those who run typical OCIs need not worry about the "need" for premium products. I did it to prove to folks that everyday lubes and filters are way more capable than your "normal" OCI will ever be able to stress their potential.


Whereas most folks in this thread have made decent points about syn media this and pump rate that, the concept comes down to one of capacity. I can assure you that most any product offered by an OEM or credible aftermarket can provide what is intended, and a whole lot more than your engine "needs".

The bottom line is this:
the products are sold "new in box" not at the max application need; they are sold well above that requirement so that as they age in service, they continue to have capacity above the max designed condition requirement. And then once you understand how your definition of "fine filtration" and "flow" fit into the equation, it all makes sense.


Quote:
This chemist, doesn't see how that's possible.


Being a chemist and not a mechanical engineer, you're forgiven.
grin2.gif

Just kidding!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
^^^ I have two guesses about why Wix publishes 50% @ 20 micron. First, maybe they use single layer synthetic media. Basically very low grade synthetic that can't filter as efficiently as the higher tier filters like the Ultra which use dual layer material. The second is that maybe their efficiency is actually very high @ 40 micron but for consistency they publish the value @ 20 microns. To me this is a very important possibility. Many times efficiencies are published @ 40 micron and this detail gets easily missed and often forgotten when comparing two different filters.



The AMSOIL, RP, Donaldson and Fleetguard synthetic filters are all single layer
21.gif



I am not sure that the last part is right. RP and Amsoil seem to be dual layer.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3596996/"High_end"_o#Post3596996
 
Thanks dnewton3!!

I knew that a filter would out perform what was "needed" right out of the box. As you said, it would have to, in order to meet the specs of the filter as the filter aged in usage. But thanks for making some points even more clear.

Yes, I am not engineer. My ME friends mock me about this all the time. So, it must be an ME thing.


I'm trying to get to the bottom of this Wix/Napa Platinum Synthetic oil filter problem that none of us can seem to figure out. That being: Why did Wix create a synthetic filter that is supposedly so inferior to everyone else? From every perspective (business, marketing, scientific, etc. etc.) it makes no sense. Zero.

Therefore, in my mind, it's gotta be explained by something that we're not taking into account.
 
Originally Posted By: JerryBob
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
^^^ I have two guesses about why Wix publishes 50% @ 20 micron. First, maybe they use single layer synthetic media. Basically very low grade synthetic that can't filter as efficiently as the higher tier filters like the Ultra which use dual layer material. The second is that maybe their efficiency is actually very high @ 40 micron but for consistency they publish the value @ 20 microns. To me this is a very important possibility. Many times efficiencies are published @ 40 micron and this detail gets easily missed and often forgotten when comparing two different filters.



The AMSOIL, RP, Donaldson and Fleetguard synthetic filters are all single layer
21.gif



I am not sure that the last part is right. RP and Amsoil seem to be dual layer.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3596996/"High_end"_o#Post3596996


Hmmm, perhaps I didn't try and pull it apart well enough when I cut mine open
21.gif


The fleetguard, Donaldson, AMSOIL and RP all use the same media I believe, which is a Donaldson product.

Comically in that thread, it shows the FRAM having single layer media, which is the only one of them advertised as having dual-layer media, LOL!!!
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Comically in that thread, it shows the FRAM having single layer media, which is the only one of them advertised as having dual-layer media, LOL!!!
I have asked MotorKing that specific question because another thread also stated it was single layer. He stated that all Ultras are dual layer, but that you would have to do some work to pull the layers apart thereby making it appear to be single layer.
 
I am not reading all the posts, but I was always under the impression the (full or blended) synthetic media is what gave the filter the higher efficiency without compromising "flow."

None of us here design filters so I feel the majority of posts are just opinions. Its hard to say how it all really works.

*High efficiency is a nice selling point, but that's about it.
 
Last edited:
I am still ready, willing, and able to have a "cut-off" with 901' with my XP versus his Ultra. That way we can all see in one thread the differences and the "design flaws" of the XP. Filter, camera, saw, Photobucket standing by.
 
Getting ready for the "cut-off" with 'Memphis.

This is my donation. Fits '91 - '05 GM. Very popular number. WIX only makes the XP for their best sellers. Made in the U.S.A.

[img:center][/img]

Date code on bottom if someone can interpret it.

[img:center][/img]

Internally lubricated gasket, silicone ADBV, and steel center tube. I don't see any defects or anti-rust overspray, do you?

[img:center][/img]

Waiting for 901Memphis...
 
I like the XP but it's too pricey for me. The ultra wins in terms of price and availability. The D+ and RP is the same way. Efficiency is better for those of you that care too. I think we can all agree on this.

I guess I don't see the reason for the stand off?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top