Toughguard vs wix

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be nice I agree.

Does that study contain a graph of particle size vs. wear (or enough information to construct one if not) in your preferred 8 to 25 micron range, or maybe more round numbers like the 5 to 25 micron range, that would show how steeply or shallowly (to use simple terms) the damage caused drops off outside the well published 10 to 20 micron range of most damage, and how sharp or blunt the peak in the 10 to 20 micron range is? I would enjoy seeing that quantified personally.
 
Just image if you guys worked for an oil filter company you would have all of this data in hand. Would that make you drool?
 
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
ZeeOSix,

FWIW I never said those were your table & graph - check what you quoted from my post to verify.

Any explanation on why table says B & H are more efficient than F?

Without the graph, there's no way to see F is better than B & H.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of extrapolation and interpolation . Extrapolation is trying to predict something outside a data set. Interpolation is trying to predict something at a point within the bounds of the data set, but not directly measured in the data set.


LoL ... don't worry, I fully understand interrelation and extrapolation.

OK, so here's what I'm seeing if you want to nit-pik this table/graph I posted.

If you compare the table and the graph, it's clear that the table has a few entries mixed up. Just look at what micron size puts the curve at 98% efficiency and it's easy to see the errors in the table.

1) The green curve should really be for Filters B & H in the table.

2) The yellow curve should really be for Filter G.

3) The purple curve should really be for Filter F in the table.

Per the table it's easy to see that the best to worse filters are : D, C, B & H, G, F and A & E.

Also, if you draw a horizontal line from 98%, the order of the curves needs to match the order of the table at 98%. It doesn't because the table is mixed up like I showed above.

Like I keep saying, it's very easy to see which filter is best and which is worse by just looking at the curves. And if the table didn't have errors in it, you can also easily tell which filter is best by just looking at the microns size at 98% efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Just image if you guys worked for an oil filter company you would have all of this data in hand. Would that make you drool?


Yeah, but it would all be "proprietary" and you couldn't tell anyone!
eek.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

So using just the data from the table, which is a single data point typical of what the consumer gets from a filter brand or manufacturer, can you reasonably predict say the efficiency of the various filters at say 20 microns, a data point not given in the table? Remember, not using the graph. Which filters are likely to have the most error trying to do this? Those with their single data point in the table further away from 20 microns, or those with their single data point closer to 20 microns?

If one filter is higher efficiency at both 10 and 20 microns than another filter that's all the info I'd need to make a more informed decision It's hard to imagine any media efficiency curve would be less than linear between those 2 points. It may be better perhaps in an upward curve shape vs. a straight line, but if that turns out to be the case, it would only be a bonus for me, and perhaps that manufacturer would share that data to differentiate that design.


Again ... the Efficiency vs Particle Size curves will all be similarly shaped family of curves as seen in the graph. They are not going to drastically cross-cross all over the place. The one example with a slight cross-over was between the yellow and purple curves, but that's negligible (hair splitting).

Choosing the filter that is most efficient at 98% will pretty much guarantee that it's also higher efficiency at every particle size. That's basically how all filters work - a filter that is "98% @ 20 microns" is not going to be worse at 10 microns than the filter that is "98% @ 30 microns" is at 10 microns.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Just image if you guys worked for an oil filter company you would have all of this data in hand. Would that make you drool?


I drool over any type of data.

If I worked for the "company" I would do so only under a research grant with a Public University (as I kinda do now). Send the data to myself in an email and then FoIA the heck out of it. I do not think I would have a problem with the IRB...
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Industrial espionage ...
eek.gif



Haha, that is the reason why some "consulting firms" exist. As a "subcontractor" for one of those firms, they would do research for the "big 3" (as an example). Because they "slept" with everyone, they know what each other was doing... and each company shared some info about the other
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

So using just the data from the table, which is a single data point typical of what the consumer gets from a filter brand or manufacturer, can you reasonably predict say the efficiency of the various filters at say 20 microns, a data point not given in the table? Remember, not using the graph. Which filters are likely to have the most error trying to do this? Those with their single data point in the table further away from 20 microns, or those with their single data point closer to 20 microns?

If one filter is higher efficiency at both 10 and 20 microns than another filter that's all the info I'd need to make a more informed decision It's hard to imagine any media efficiency curve would be less than linear between those 2 points. It may be better perhaps in an upward curve shape vs. a straight line, but if that turns out to be the case, it would only be a bonus for me, and perhaps that manufacturer would share that data to differentiate that design.


Again ... the Efficiency vs Particle Size curves will all be similarly shaped family of curves as seen in the graph. They are not going to drastically cross-cross all over the place. The one example with a slight cross-over was between the yellow and purple curves, but that's negligible (hair splitting).

Choosing the filter that is most efficient at 98% will pretty much guarantee that it's also higher efficiency at every particle size. That's basically how all filters work - a filter that is "98% @ 20 microns" is not going to be worse at 10 microns than the filter that is "98% @ 30 microns" is at 10 microns.



I see a very different shape in the green curve - very high slope at the lower range of the curve, an area of inflection, then a pretty low slope.

So you never did answer which would need the largest margin for error if extrapolating from a single data point.

And I have no real idea what "choosing a filter that's most efficient at 98% means??? Help us understand.

I would see a statement such as "choosing the filter that's most efficient at 20 microns" to make a lot more sense in this context personally, but it still isn't quite what I would do.

I would choose the filter with the most area under the curve between 10 and 20 microns, absent any data showing the magnitude of damage caused by particle sizes near those bounds. That's called Integration and would be based on something quantified by empirical studies of what causes the most wear that the oil filter can address.

Here's an even simpler example. Fram Ultra is stated to be 80% efficient at 5 microns and 99+% efficient at 20 microns (but I'll just use 99% as the "+" isn't quantified). I'll pick the XG 2 model for my truck. Then compare that with the Napa Gold published beta ratios for the 7899 (even though we don't know the test method used). So 50% at 6 microns and 95% at 20 microns. I can picture in my head without needing to plot a curve on paper or with electrons that the area under the curve for the XG2 will be greater than the area under the curve for the 7899 - and that's also because I have two data points to interpolate between rather than attempting to extrapolate from a single data point. The curves are similar shape because I only have 2 data points on each curve. But the slopes are different (change in rise divided by change in run). The XG2 slope is 1.27. The 7899 slope is 3.21. To you, the same; to me, quantitatively shown, quite different.

These two lines most surely will cross at a point if extrapolated - parallel lines by definition must have the same slope / direction, never crossing. But I'm also comparing 2 considerably different types of media rated with non-similar efficiency at 20 microns. Filters with similar media may well cross in this range of particle sizes. I'm willing to be convinced though if you can supply the graphs of ISO 4548-12 data from numerous off the shelf oil filters with similar media in this particle size range to show they won't cross.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

I see a very different shape in the green curve - very high slope at the lower range of the curve, an area of inflection, then a pretty low slope.

So you never did answer which would need the largest margin for error if extrapolating from a single data point.

And I have no real idea what "choosing a filter that's most efficient at 98% means??? Help us understand.

I would see a statement such as "choosing the filter that's most efficient at 20 microns" to make a lot more sense in this context personally, but it still isn't quite what I would do.

I would choose the filter with the most area under the curve between 10 and 20 microns, absent any data showing the magnitude of damage caused by particle sizes near those bounds. That's called Integration and would be based on something quantified by empirical studies of what causes the most wear that the oil filter can address.


First off, I wouldn't extrapolate anything. You either have the full curve or a point or two or three of data to make any decision on efficiency. I would not extrapolate anything - I only use what data I have. The chances of getting full "Efficiency vs Particle Size" curves for everyday vehicle filters is probably below nill. You might find this kind of data on very high end commercial filters from manufacturers like Donaldson, etc.

So based on that, as I have said before, the best filters shown on the graph are the ones that have the best efficiency at 98%, which is the data point they are all compared at. And as can be seen in this example, the filters that are best at 98% are also best at every other particle size. That's how filters behave, and that's why you can chose the best filter by knowing one or two data points.

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

Here's an even simpler example. Fram Ultra is stated to be 80% efficient at 5 microns and 99+% efficient at 20 microns (but I'll just use 99% as the "+" isn't quantified). I'll pick the XG 2 model for my truck. Then compare that with the Napa Gold published beta ratios for the 7899 (even though we don't know the test method used). So 50% at 6 microns and 95% at 20 microns. I can picture in my head without needing to plot a curve on paper or with electrons that the area under the curve for the XG2 will be greater than the area under the curve for the 7899 - and that's also because I have two data points to interpolate between rather than attempting to extrapolate from a single data point. The curves are similar shape because I only have 2 data points on each curve. But the slopes are different (change in rise divided by change in run). The XG2 slope is 1.27. The 7899 slope is 3.21. To you, the same; to me, quantitatively shown, quite different.

These two lines most surely will cross at a point if extrapolated - parallel lines by definition must have the same slope / direction, never crossing. But I'm also comparing 2 considerably different types of media rated with non-similar efficiency at 20 microns. Filters with similar media may well cross in this range of particle sizes.


You're making this way more than complicated (ie,rocket science) than it needs to be.
wink.gif
Of course if a Filter A (Ultra) is better at 20 microns than Filter B (NAPA Gold), then it will also be better at 5 or 6 microns. That's all I have to know to chose the better efficiency filter over-all. And doing so will most likely also give you the filter with the best "area under the curve".

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I'm willing to be convinced though if you can supply the graphs of ISO 4548-12 data from numerous off the shelf oil filters with similar media in this particle size range to show they won't cross.


LOL ... OK, how about you send me $5,000 for each filter to be tested per ISO 4548-12 and I'll put all the data together.
grin.gif


Seriously, that's how much an independent laboratory will charge to test filters per ISO 4548-12. Or maybe the board can raise $225,000 to buy our own ISO 4548-12 test bench system. Or you can spend some time on the internet Googling to see if you can find some ISO test results. I think there are some out there, as I do recall seeing a data sheet or two that was actually from the ISO 4548-12 test.
 
and depending on who does the test and what their agenda happens to be maybe just maybe you will get some truth.... In the real world anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
And I have no real idea what "choosing a filter that's most efficient at 98% means??? Help us understand.

I would see a statement such as "choosing the filter that's most efficient at 20 microns" to make a lot more sense in this context personally, but it still isn't quite what I would do.

I would choose the filter with the most area under the curve between 10 and 20 microns, absent any data showing the magnitude of damage caused by particle sizes near those bounds. That's called Integration and would be based on something quantified by empirical studies of what causes the most wear that the oil filter can address.[/quote


First off, I wouldn't extrapolate anything. You either have the full curve or a point or two or three of data to make any decision on efficiency. I would not extrapolate anything - I only use what data I have. The chances of getting full "Efficiency vs Particle Size" curves for everyday vehicle filters is probably below nill. You might find this kind of data on very high end commercial filters from manufacturers like Donaldson, etc.

So based on that, as I have said before, the best filters shown on the graph are the ones that have the best efficiency at 98%, which is the data point they are all compared at. And as can be seen in this example, the filters that are best at 98% are also best at every other particle size. That's how filters behave, and that's why you can chose the best filter by knowing one or two data points.

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

Here's an even simpler example. Fram Ultra is stated to be 80% efficient at 5 microns and 99+% efficient at 20 microns (but I'll just use 99% as the "+" isn't quantified). I'll pick the XG 2 model for my truck. Then compare that with the Napa Gold published beta ratios for the 7899 (even though we don't know the test method used). So 50% at 6 microns and 95% at 20 microns. I can picture in my head without needing to plot a curve on paper or with electrons that the area under the curve for the XG2 will be greater than the area under the curve for the 7899 - and that's also because I have two data points to interpolate between rather than attempting to extrapolate from a single data point. The curves are similar shape because I only have 2 data points on each curve. But the slopes are different (change in rise divided by change in run). The XG2 slope is 1.27. The 7899 slope is 3.21. To you, the same; to me, quantitatively shown, quite different.

These two lines most surely will cross at a point if extrapolated - parallel lines by definition must have the same slope / direction, never crossing. But I'm also comparing 2 considerably different types of media rated with non-similar efficiency at 20 microns. Filters with similar media may well cross in this range of particle sizes.


You're making this way more than complicated (ie,rocket science) than it needs to be.
wink.gif
Of course if a Filter A (Ultra) is better at 20 microns than Filter B (NAPA Gold), then it will also be better at 5 or 6 microns. That's all I have to know to chose the better efficiency filter over-all. And doing so will most likely also give you the filter with the best "area under the curve".

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I'm willing to be convinced though if you can supply the graphs of ISO 4548-12 data from numerous off the shelf oil filters with similar media in this particle size range to show they won't cross.


LOL ... OK, how about you send me $5,000 for each filter to be tested per ISO 4548-12 and I'll put all the data together.
grin.gif


Seriously, that's how much an independent laboratory will charge to test filters per ISO 4548-12. Or maybe the board can raise $225,000 to buy our own ISO 4548-12 test bench system. Or you can spend some time on the internet Googling to see if you can find some ISO test results. I think there are some out there, as I do recall seeing a data sheet or two that was actually from the ISO 4548-12 test.


Can you please explain what I've highlighted in red? This is the third instance you've posted this. 98% isn't a particle size, so with only one data point, or maybe two, published by just about any filter company, many of which are at a point other than 98%, this doesn't make any sense to me.

So based on the ZeeOSix rule that no filter efficiency lines will cross, you're telling us in 2007, using ISO data from the chart I posted early on in this thread when Wix & Napa Gold efficiencies were being discussed, you're telling us absolutely the Fram PH8A was definitely the most efficient filter at 10 microns, regardless of the fact the Mobil 1 filter uses blended media with enough structural integrity to go up to 15K miles on synthetic oil.

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Why not use the ISO 4548-12 test results for Wix and Wix made-fors on the second page of this document?

http://www.mobil.com/Shared-Files-LCW/mobil-1-ep-oil-filter-design_amer_en.pdf


I just don't buy it - because I know only a Sith deals in absolutes. I can ask someone if other data points from that chart can be shared but I predict a low probability of that occurring.

In fact, I think I added more ISO 4548-12 data in this thread than anyone ...Bueller ...ZeeOSix ... anyone?

Also, the ZeeOSix Rule means an intact PureOne must have a better efficiency than a Fram Ultra at 10 microns, because the "+" in 99+% isn't really quantified, regardless of the differences in media used. Again, I don't buy that.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Can you please explain what I've highlighted in red? This is the third instance you've posted this. 98% isn't a particle size, so with only one data point, or maybe two, published by just about any filter company, many of which are at a point other than 98%, this doesn't make any sense to me.


But there is a particle size associated for every filter in the table/graph for 98% efficiency. Look at just the graph since it appears that the table has a few errors. Draw a horizontal line at 98% across the graph. Then look at what particle size is associated with each curve at 98% efficiency. It's easy to see how the filters rank best to worse.

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
So based on the ZeeOSix rule that no filter efficiency lines will cross, you're telling us in 2007, using ISO data from the chart I posted early on in this thread when Wix & Napa Gold efficiencies were being discussed, you're telling us absolutely the Fram PH8A was definitely the most efficient filter at 10 microns, regardless of the fact the Mobil 1 filter uses blended media with enough structural integrity to go up to 15K miles on synthetic oil.


Most likely that is true. As discussed earlier, the curves might cross between different media compositions if they both have similar efficiency vs size curves (yellow & purple lines), but if comparing the same media types the family of curves will most likely not cross. As you can see on the graphs, the glass media would never cross with a cellulose filter. The glass media also has the most area under the curve, which means it ultimately will remove more total particles than the cellulose filters shown. Don't take this graph as "gospel" ... it's just an example showing how different media types compare for efficiency.

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Why not use the ISO 4548-12 test results for Wix and Wix made-fors on the second page of this document?

http://www.mobil.com/Shared-Files-LCW/mobil-1-ep-oil-filter-design_amer_en.pdf

I just don't buy it - because I know only a Sith deals in absolutes. I can ask someone if other data points from that chart can be shared but I predict a low probability of that occurring.

In fact, I think I added more ISO 4548-12 data in this thread than anyone ...Bueller ...ZeeOSix ... anyone?


Sure, use that data that Mobil shows if you want. It's based on ISO 4548-12, but it is old data. Filter designs from the manufacturers do change over time, and it's not always for the best.

Give WIX a call and see what they say ... LoL. I already tried it and you'll get nowhere. They won't even tell you what test spec their efficiency number are based on.

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Also, the ZeeOSix Rule means an intact PureOne must have a better efficiency than a Fram Ultra at 10 microns, because the "+" in 99+% isn't really quantified, regardless of the differences in media used. Again, I don't buy that.


Yep, that is true. There are some old threads around where members got efficiency data from Purolator all the way down to 5 microns and it was pretty impressive. BUT, too bad the PureOnes are having media tearing problems.
 
Originally Posted By: Bud_One
Personally I prefer the Tough Guard - I've used it and will continue to use it in the future.
But I don't think you can go wrong with using the Wix either.
Both will meet the demands of your usage intentions with ease.


The Tough Guard has a better micron rating???

Correct?

It filters out more dirt?

However both filters are very good and I would have no problem useing them

However the FRAM TG is more easy to find.
 
Originally Posted By: David1
Originally Posted By: Bud_One
Personally I prefer the Tough Guard - I've used it and will continue to use it in the future.
But I don't think you can go wrong with using the Wix either.
Both will meet the demands of your usage intentions with ease.


The Tough Guard has a better micron rating???

Correct?

It filters out more dirt?

However both filters are very good and I would have no problem useing them

However the FRAM TG is more easy to find.


Originally Posted By: David1
Originally Posted By: Bud_One
Personally I prefer the Tough Guard - I've used it and will continue to use it in the future.
But I don't think you can go wrong with using the Wix either.
Both will meet the demands of your usage intentions with ease.


The Tough Guard has a better micron rating???

Correct?

It filters out more dirt?

However both filters are very good and I would have no problem useing them

However the FRAM TG is more easy to find.



No body really knows what the tg, or FRAM anything for that matter, is actually capable of filtering too as FRAM uses some spooky verbiage to relate it. Kinda the same concept as when you go to a burger joint and order one of those terrific looking burgers on the window sign and you get a mc double.

When you cut open a "TOUGH" guard you get a
15egw1j.jpg
with a silver paint job and a silicone adbv along with a little bit of fiberglass mixed in with that tumble weed looking media. Tough to look at is about as far as it goes lol.

If it can(big if) really filter 99% at 20mu, I couldn't imagine it doing so for too long once it's pleats are spread wide open as the Napa valley and bent over / mangled. Maybe a couple hundred miles in real world use.
 
Yeah, it's soooo spooooky that nobody can understand those efficiency specs. What are we all going to do? LoL

BTW - that photo is not a TG. What's spooky is that people post pixs and claim it's something it's not.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, it's soooo spooooky that nobody can understand those efficiency specs. What are we all going to do? LoL

BTW - that photo is not a TG. What's spooky is that people post pixs and claim it's something it's not.

Reread my post. I think it went over your head.
 
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, it's soooo spooooky that nobody can understand those efficiency specs. What are we all going to do? LoL

BTW - that photo is not a TG. What's spooky is that people post pixs and claim it's something it's not.

Reread my post. I think it went over your head.


Nope. You think it's all "spooky", but it's actually really quite simple to understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Fram FE9972 vs WIX 57047XP for 2AR-FE?
Replies
8
Views
3K
ZeeOSix
Fabulous50s
first use of Fram filter
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
GMBoy
J
A Better Choice Than FL820S ?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
7K
ZeeOSix
O
Oversized filter discussion (please excuse my ignorance)
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
oldhp
L
O'Reilly's MSL line " Wix Xp " knock off( Pic )
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
researcher
Back
Top