napa gold oil filters vs purolator classic filters

[Bigdaddyeasy]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
As far as the 99% at greater than 20 microns, well, I don't know how to help some people understand how that does not lead to a definite figure but that its left open. Most likely it was carefully stated that way by legally minded people for accountability purposes.

Here we go again. What legal accountability would Fram face if the competition tested the XG and found it only filtered 95% at 20.0000001 microns? Technically, it did not filter 99% at greater than 20 microns. Tests are standardized, as is the methodology for interpreting the results. If you're worried about fine print and legalize, concern yourself more that this is a representative number that may not correspond to every Fram Ultra model number out there.

There's a lot of mathematical nonsense being spouted in this thread, as I already stated. It's absolutely ridiculous that the innumeracy being spread in this thread is so bad that I'm defending an entire line of oil filtration products I've never purchased or used in my life.

If you don't like Fram, don't buy them. If you don't trust the numbers, don't buy Fram. If you don't understand the mathematics, ask someone. Don't ask me, though, because I've already explained it several times over the past few months. I'll just suggest that you leave a bag of burning doggie doodoo on your Grade 6 math teacher's door step and ring the bell, since he failed you miserably.


Well that's all just not very nice at all, mr garak. I would never do that to my 6th grade math teacher as she's very along in age now and,well, that's not respecting your elders.

I feel like I've done my very best to help you out with this error in your thinking with >20 and I'm just at my whit's end. Hopefully futuredoc can manage that task himself.

Who lights doodo on fire anyway or imagines something like that?

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the topic of p classic vs napa gold? I really like the Napa wix filters. I think the abv in the threaded end is best because it ensures no unfiltered oil drains back.

 

[jhellwig]

This thread needs deleted.

 

[Oil Changer]

Here's a novel idea. Instead of advocating censorship, don't click on the link. You already know you don't like the content and if the thread is deleted, you couldn't click on the link anyway, right? Right. It's really that simple. Now go ahead and argue and commence with the name-calling...

Originally Posted By: jhellwig
This thread needs deleted.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Well that's all just not very nice at all, mr garak. I would never do that to my 6th grade math teacher as she's very along in age now and,well, that's not respecting your elders.

Well, she gets what's coming to her.

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
I feel like I've done my very best to help you out with this error in your thinking with >20 and I'm just at my whit's end. Hopefully futuredoc can manage that task himself.

Trust me, there is no error in my thinking. I do understand that a lot of people are skeptical because of what marketing people will try to foist upon us, particularly when there are ten paragraphs of print in a 20 micron font, full of disclaimers, on most products we buy. When something is reported as a result of an accredited testing procedure, I don't think it's unfair to expect the result to be reported in a mathematically rigorous fashion. This isn't the same as removing "up to 40%" of sludge in the first oil change

As I stated, if Fram got caught by the competition filtering only 95% of 20.0000001 micron particles (which would fit within the "marketing" definition of the claim, but not the mathematical definition), they'd clearly be in the wrong. You can't filter 99% of particles greater than 20 microns yet still fail my hypothetical above. It can't go both ways. This is a pass-fail test.

As for what I imagine doing to math teachers with flaming bags, you should have met my first year calculus professor many years back. Because he had to spend the first couple weeks "unlearning" the average students' heads full of bad ideas and nonsense and reteaching algebra from basically square one, he took the first lecture to let us know exactly what he thought of the crop of mathematics teachers in primary and secondary schools, and he wasn't kind about it.

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the topic of p classic vs napa gold? I really like the Napa wix filters. I think the abv in the threaded end is best because it ensures no unfiltered oil drains back.

I do prefer the Napa Gold/Wix. Part of it is availability (Purolator is essentially a no show up here aside from the rebranded stuff, like Motorcraft and Quaker State; I use Motorcraft, though). Part of it is that I get a good deal on the Wix. I've also used them for a lot of years. I did like the Bosch Premiums, provided they were tear free, but those were generally ordered online with other parts for free shipping.

I prefer thread end bypass, but not all Wix/Napa Golds have that. The 51358 I'm using in my G37, for instance, appears to have a dome end bypass, but it's a rather tiny filter, and thread end bypass sacrifices more media area, which is a bigger deal in a tiny filter. I believe that there are a couple filters from Wix that will fit the G37 that do have the thread end bypass. I know that the 51356, 51365, and 57356 all will fit, and I'm pretty sure one or two of them do have the thread end bypass. Someone here would certainly know for sure.

 

[Bigdaddyeasy]

Ya I use a motorcraft cartridge filter on my fusion. Holds up great for 10k.
Wix on the mazda or m1 if I catch a sale on it.
I'm one of those that change my filters on their own fci separate from oci.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Garak
... I know that the 51356, 51365, and 57356 all will fit, and I'm pretty sure one or two of them do have the thread end bypass. Someone here would certainly know for sure.

The 51356 and the 57356 both have thread end bypass. The former though is the original Honda PC application filter. Wix changed the baseplate awhile back and 57356 became it's replacement. It now has thread end bypass as well as silicone adbv. It went through a couple/few configurations before arriving at the current one. I'm currently running a NG 7356 with dome bypass silicone adbv, but the newest version now used and in my stash is thread end. Because of similarity to the 51358 newer baseplate design, of those mentioned the 57356 would be the best choice for replacement imo.

The other two mentioned now appear to be mostly OPE applications.

 

[jhellwig]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Here's a novel idea. Instead of advocating censorship, don't click on the link. You already know you don't like the content and if the thread is deleted, you couldn't click on the link anyway, right? Right. It's really that simple. Now go ahead and argue and commence with the name-calling...

Originally Posted By: jhellwig
This thread needs deleted.


Kinda like you marching into valvoline and fram threads and proclaiming your hate for them?

The dumber thing is that I keep clicking on view this users posts anyways just to see what has been regurgitated this time by you.

 

[Bigdaddyeasy]

My whata hyper banana

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Greater than 20 means all greater than 20 (+/- whatever error bar there is in the test), up to infinity. That's a mathematical definition with no ambiguity. And any marketer (or anyone else) who's tried to fudge that when dealing with me in any of my businesses has walked away with some rather sore eardrums. And I don't apologize for telling them that they're innumerate, either. When someone comes out with mathematical nonsense, I will tell them. That's not ad hominem at all.


Correct, greater than 20 means greater than 20. So when you say something captures 99% for particles larger than 20, then they are or could be counting 21, 25, and 30 micron particles in that 99% figure and I have shown how that is potentially fudged. Especially since Fram is using parameters not in line with the standard they cite (ISO 4548-12).

Thus claiming Fram captures 99% at 20 is inaccurate and there is insufficient proof to say it filters more/better than another filter that claims 95% at 20 microns (nor can I say the 95% is more than Fram).

As for ad hominem, I forgive you for that statement.
Quote:
...still don't understand it, particularly those with graduate degrees, it is clearly time that they sue their parents and their alma maters for the rats' nest that has been foisted upon them in the name of education



Originally Posted By: Garak
As for logic, logic would also tell us that other companies, notably competitors, have tested Fram's claims. Logic further tells us that if >20 microns in this case means 25 microns or 30 microns, the competitors would be shouting this from the rooftops since, despite my disapproval, Fram is the big name in the filtering world.


I don't expect any organization to "act logically". Only individuals can (not always) act logically in my book, beyond that, things get socially constructed. Tearolator only cites one specific filter so if anyone claims that all Pure1 filter 99% then I will tear that claim apart just how normal use tears their media. I have no doubt that other entities test claims but because Fram's claim is incredibly ambiguous,they have enough room to navigate through tearolator size holes. One the entity mush show that they are outside their claim and the > helps Fram. Two, other manufactures could also also be using the terms, and three, the costof conducting those claimed test outweighs any potential benefit. You don't always try to police your competitors... particularly in a semi-staple margin industry. Keep in mind that marketing is completely "grey". You can claim a grapefruit drink with 0 grapefruit because of its "defining characteristics". You can claim "low-fat" on massive caloric means. The term "natural" is a free-for-all and even organic under some conditions has not real meaning. That little > symbol is kinda like making the "made in US/Canada" into "assembled in US/Canada". It opens the whole item up to a potentially wider definition so if you do not have more specific... well it is up a water-body > creek without a paddle.

Originally Posted By: Garak
Logic also states that there could be no filter element in the cans at all, since particles that cannot pass the holes are >20 microns and all of them will be stopped. The only reason we see filter elements in the Fram Ultras cut apart by BITOGers is because of the same statistical anomaly that made BITOGers the only people subject to Purolator tears, a problem that doesn't really exist, either, right?


Yes good point and you are correct. If fram used bowling balls as their size, the filter would be effective without media... but we don't know if Fram used bowling balls. The "results" are dependent on the "yardstick" that Fram is using and they are not telling us which yardstick they are using. They gave us numbers but not what was being counted. Betas can be noted with multiple particle sizes so we could know if it is 100/50/20 = 30/20/10 but Fram did not provide that didn't they.

I think Fram makes a decent product, actually a excellent product at the given pricepoints. Not a Fram hater by any means. I prefer WIX because they are "local" and a good product. I don't think that Fram is "wrong" with their material... but I think a lot of folks misunderstand or make a logical fallacy claiming that it is 99% at 20 or 20.01

At the end of the day, it is similar to two oils giving a new volatility, mass % loss. Option One says "14" based on ASTM D5800. Option Two the other says greater than 12 based on ASTM D5800. Yes, we know that One is 14 within a given range of error. Option two could be 12.1, or 13, or even 15. What we can not determine is which has the lower mass loss. The "standard" does not really use language that assist the "greater than" modifier. So anyone claiming that option 2 is better is not making an accurate claim.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Here we go again. What legal accountability would Fram face if the competition tested the XG and found it only filtered 95% at 20.0000001 microns? Technically, it did not filter 99% at greater than 20 microns. Tests are standardized, as is the methodology for interpreting the results. If you're worried about fine print and legalize, concern yourself more that this is a representative number that may not correspond to every Fram Ultra model number out there.


Tests are standardized, then use the standardized reporting metric. Give us a metric in a beta ratio. I am "ok" with a few models representing a "level" of filter because I know my Subie filters were naturally be an outlier due to their bypass spec needs.

If fram is 95% 20.0000001, their claim of 99% > 20 could still be accurate. No legal issues there. Nor does that mean that their products are any less of a value.

Originally Posted By: Garak
There's a lot of mathematical nonsense being spouted in this thread, as I already stated. It's absolutely ridiculous that the innumeracy being spread in this thread is so bad that I'm defending an entire line of oil filtration products I've never purchased or used in my life.


Imagine how I feel. Folks using fuzzy terms in absolute statements to make inaccurate claims... it is making me argue against a product line that I generally like and I use from time to time.

Where can I sign my kids up at a school that teaches empirical research methods and deductive logic in the 6th grade? Normally, that is saved up until the post-graduate level. Sign them up. Heck, I would be happy if they were taught oil filter engineering at the middle-school level.

 

[Nate1979]

Wow, this thread is still going. So when Fram updates their box with the new info who wants to be the first to say I told you so?

 

[KCJeep]

This is so easy it's hilarious. How can even OCD two dimensional thinkers get stuck on this???

Fram cites the ISO 4548-12 so that's what it is. If it wasn't they be in court. Because some bean counter legal jockey decided > was "safer" just as Motorking said does not mean it is some big cover up.

Greater than 20 is not ambiguous. If a competitor ran a Fram filter test at only 21 microns and it didn't meet the published efficiency again they would have Fram in court.

The company that is evasive or tight lipped about actual filtering efficiency is Wix but that's a whole 'nother topic (and I use mostly Wix made filters).

Sheesh.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
This is so easy it's hilarious. How can even OCD two dimensional thinkers get stuck on this???

Fram cites the ISO 4548-12 so that's what it is. If it wasn't they be in court. Because some bean counter legal jockey decided > was "safer" just as Motorking said does not mean it is some big cover up.

Greater than 20 is not ambiguous. If a competitor ran a Fram filter test at only 21 microns and it didn't meet the published efficiency again they would have Fram in court.

The company that is evasive or tight lipped about actual filtering efficiency is Wix but that's a whole 'nother topic (and I use mostly Wix made filters).

Sheesh.

All use the same test, all the various terminology saying at or greater than means the same thing here. The whole discussion was devised to cast doubt on Fram Ultra oil filters high efficiency for some unknown need. For some to cast doubt is the same as saying guilty as charged. IMO of course.

 

[FutureDoc]

How do I get stuck...again 21 is not the same as >20.

That is calling a rectangle a square.
True: 21 is >20
False: >20 is 21

Not enough info available (Wix included), that is what drives me mad with internet nerd rage... and it is fun to a lesser extent.

Even if someone wanted to sue Fram if it was not 99% at 21, it would not hold up. Why? Because if they used multi-sized particles "that are commonly experience in the environment which they are applied" they can take an average and use tricks with volume/mass to reach that 99% mark. It just has to be true in some cases (or for some, only one model)... you know like how Purolator P1 has 99% ... I assume they toss out the media tear test results for that figure.

Fram cites ISO 4548-12 but to the best of my understanding, the results are at a specific micron size. For example, 10, 20 or 30 microns. We get specific capture efficiency for each size. It has no "greater than" result. So it is plausible that averaging or using a sum of a specific efficiency to get that magic number which would hold up in court.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All use the same test, all the various terminology saying at or greater than means the same thing here. The whole discussion was devised to cast doubt on Fram Ultra oil filters high efficiency for some unknown need. For some to cast doubt is the same as saying guilty as charged. IMO of course.


The language is important and it can mean different things. The discussion began because someone claimed the Wix was not a top tier filter because it had a paper media and Fram Toughguard was better because of the false assertion of a full syn media and the unknown assertion higher filtering ability.

I am not saying that Fram Ultra/TG etc is not filtering 99% at 20, I am saying we don't know if it is filtering a 99% @20 and making direct comparisons about capacity across brands is akin to making UOA based on the color of the oil. Wix does not provide what test they are pulling 2/20=6/20 from, we don't know the combination of how Fram calculate >20, and Purolator only counts one specific filter despite most of the tearing. it is measuring without a common ruler.

So when we say "fram is better because they are 99% vs Wix at 95% (or vice versa)" we are firing blindly in the dark.

 

[ExMachina]

Why can't all oil filter makers be forced to state the results from the same tests? Sometimes confusing, since I've been assuming Wix's beta figures were from ISO 4548-12.
This thread is like the:

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Wix changed the baseplate awhile back and 57356 became it's replacement. It now has thread end bypass as well as silicone adbv. It went through a couple/few configurations before arriving at the current one.

That's along with what I remembered from reading before. The 51365 used to be specified, with the 51356 as oversized. As you indicated, they changed the spec, though, and the baseplate was the big difference. The specified 51358 hasn't been upgraded to a silicone ADBV, but such is life. I could oversize without "warranty issues," since I'm not using a specified viscosity anyhow.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
So when you say something captures 99% for particles larger than 20, then they are or could be counting 21, 25, and 30 micron particles in that 99% figure and I have shown how that is potentially fudged. Especially since Fram is using parameters not in line with the standard they cite (ISO 4548-12).

But, if Fram tests them at 30 and is fudging, and correct from a marketing speak point of view, where 30 > 20, a competitor could test with 25 micron particles, and they're not being filtered to 99%; thus the claim is false.

As for beta ratios, that raises problems, too. For one, few understand the things. Secondly, when listed for every filter, like Wix was doing, it gets to be a bit of a job, and even they whitewashed their data, using a representative beta ratio for every filter they have. KCJeep indicated the issue with Wix. If you print the same specification on ever filter's data page, beta ratio or not, you're in the same boat as claiming a single representative sample, like just about everyone else does.

As for sixth grade math, I'm not talking about research methodology. I'm talking about the definition of the term greater than. Beyond that, as I stated, if it filters 99% of particles of 30 micron size, yes, those particles are > 20 microns, so it fits in, from a marketing perspective, with the claim. But if Purolator or Wix tests them and finds that they only filter 95% of 25 micron particles, then it's clear that result doesn't fit with the printed claim, and they'd be open for a marketing nightmare, at the very least. Companies test each others products all the time in this industry. Even tiny Royal Purple got spanked years ago for stupid horsepower claims.

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
At the end of the day, it is similar to two oils giving a new volatility, mass % loss. Option One says "14" based on ASTM D5800. Option Two the other says greater than 12 based on ASTM D5800. Yes, we know that One is 14 within a given range of error. Option two could be 12.1, or 13, or even 15. What we can not determine is which has the lower mass loss. The "standard" does not really use language that assist the "greater than" modifier. So anyone claiming that option 2 is better is not making an accurate claim.

That's not even remotely the same thing. The claim of filtering 99% of particles greater than 20 microns is essentially saying two things about the test and result; there are two conditions being met. Saying a Noack is > 12 is only saying one thing about it. Any Noack above 12 is > 12.

However, you cannot get away with saying you filter 99% of > 20 micron particles, testing with 30 micron particles, since you may be shown to only filter 95% of 25 micron particles, which falsifies the original claim.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the topic of p classic vs napa gold? I really like the Napa wix filters. I think the abv in the threaded end is best because it ensures no unfiltered oil drains back.


I would chose the NAPA Gold over the Purolator Classic in a heartbeat. Note that not all NAPA Gold/WIX filters have a base end bypass valve, there are exceptions.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Correct, greater than 20 means greater than 20. So when you say something captures 99% for particles larger than 20, then they are or could be counting 21, 25, and 30 micron particles in that 99% figure and I have shown how that is potentially fudged.


However you "showed" how it was fudged apparently didn't make much sense to anyone else.

Let's try this on for size. Let's say that all particles that are greater than 20 microns in size or larger are captured at an efficiency of 99%. That is what Fram claims.

That means for every 100 particles that are greater than 20 microns in size (let's say 20.01 and larger), that only 1 will get through the media. It could be a 20.01 microns particle ... it could be a 40 micron particle ... or even a 100 micron particle. But the bottom line is only 1 out of 100 particles larger than 20 microns will get through. And that 1 out of 100 will most likely be near 20 microns in size.

That is exactly what Fram is saying with their ">20 microns" statement. So what's so hard to understand?

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Especially since Fram is using parameters not in line with the standard they cite (ISO 4548-12).


You have some proof that Fram is NOT following ISO 4548-12? That's what you are claiming here. So us proof. I doubt Fram wants to get sued over claiming their efficiency spec is per ISO 4548-12 when it's not (so you claim).

Man, this discussion is way off in the weeds ... maybe due to too much weed! LoL