Apparently these are all Wix filters; the Microguard and Supertech claim 70-80% efficiency at 20 Microns. Haven't seen any claim for the Proselect; does anyone know the efficiency of the Napa Silver vs the others listed???
Thanks!
Thanks!
Napa Silver vs ProSelect, Microguard, new Supertec
- Thread starter Drew99GT
- Start date
- Status
Emailed them, I asked nicely for basic info on efficiency, got no response...
I don't know the answer but I do know I plan on using either of the Microgaurd or the Supertech filters. I do short OCI so I am not worried about them not lasting beyond 3000 miles.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
the Microguard and Supertech claim 70-80% efficiency at 20 Microns.
Which is pretty terrible compared to the competition, if accurate. Why is everyone so excited about these new Supertechs?
the Microguard and Supertech claim 70-80% efficiency at 20 Microns.
Which is pretty terrible compared to the competition, if accurate. Why is everyone so excited about these new Supertechs?
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
the Microguard and Supertech claim 70-80% efficiency at 20 Microns.
Which is pretty terrible compared to the competition, if accurate. Why is everyone so excited about these new Supertechs?
Probably because the cheaper Wix made filters have never shown any deficiency in build quality (aside from the combo valve but there hasn't been any negative repercussions about them). I've been a member here almost from the beginning and i can't remember any "controversy" over Wix filters like there has been from Fram or Purolator regarding construction quality.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
the Microguard and Supertech claim 70-80% efficiency at 20 Microns.
Which is pretty terrible compared to the competition, if accurate. Why is everyone so excited about these new Supertechs?
Probably because the cheaper Wix made filters have never shown any deficiency in build quality (aside from the combo valve but there hasn't been any negative repercussions about them). I've been a member here almost from the beginning and i can't remember any "controversy" over Wix filters like there has been from Fram or Purolator regarding construction quality.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
the Microguard and Supertech claim 70-80% efficiency at 20 Microns.
Which is pretty terrible compared to the competition, if accurate. Why is everyone so excited about these new Supertechs?
+1 There are a lot of filters out there that are the same (many better) than the supertechs. Don't get me wrong, any of those filters would do the trick but I would probably keep them for short change intervals etc.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
the Microguard and Supertech claim 70-80% efficiency at 20 Microns.
Which is pretty terrible compared to the competition, if accurate. Why is everyone so excited about these new Supertechs?
+1 There are a lot of filters out there that are the same (many better) than the supertechs. Don't get me wrong, any of those filters would do the trick but I would probably keep them for short change intervals etc.
The second page of this document is the only published ISO 4548-12 efficiency for Napa Proselect and Wix made Pro-Tec filters.
http://www.mobil.com/Shared-Files-LCW/mobil-1-ep-oil-filter-design_amer_en.pdf
It's not unreasonable to envision an efficiency curve of 83% @ 25 microns and 95% @ 29 microns. Using straight line extrapolation, that yields 68% efficiency @ 20 microns slope of 3% efficiency change per 1 micron particle size change) .
Until actual ISO 4548-12 data gets posted, it's the best we can do with the numbers we have. Need more than 2 data points to try anything but a straight line.
I'm not a fan of the Wix combo valve in the ST2 / Napa PS 27899 / Microgard 57899 (my truck) and Napa PS 27502 (my wife's car). I tried one PS 27899 and the ADBV function was non-existant at the end of a 3K miles / 6 month run. I tried one PS 27502 on my wife's car and the combo valve wound up being cockeyed in service, dragging on the mounting nipple when I removed it after a 6K miles run - it had obviously been bypassing for who knows how long.
http://www.wixfilters.com/assets/TechBulletins/WIX/bulletin.wix.protec.combo.valve.final.pdf
http://www.mobil.com/Shared-Files-LCW/mobil-1-ep-oil-filter-design_amer_en.pdf
It's not unreasonable to envision an efficiency curve of 83% @ 25 microns and 95% @ 29 microns. Using straight line extrapolation, that yields 68% efficiency @ 20 microns slope of 3% efficiency change per 1 micron particle size change) .
Until actual ISO 4548-12 data gets posted, it's the best we can do with the numbers we have. Need more than 2 data points to try anything but a straight line.
I'm not a fan of the Wix combo valve in the ST2 / Napa PS 27899 / Microgard 57899 (my truck) and Napa PS 27502 (my wife's car). I tried one PS 27899 and the ADBV function was non-existant at the end of a 3K miles / 6 month run. I tried one PS 27502 on my wife's car and the combo valve wound up being cockeyed in service, dragging on the mounting nipple when I removed it after a 6K miles run - it had obviously been bypassing for who knows how long.
http://www.wixfilters.com/assets/TechBulletins/WIX/bulletin.wix.protec.combo.valve.final.pdf
Yikes. That is terrible efficiency. Thanks for the info.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Bgallagher
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
the Microguard and Supertech claim 70-80% efficiency at 20 Microns.
Which is pretty terrible compared to the competition, if accurate. Why is everyone so excited about these new Supertechs?
+1 There are a lot of filters out there that are the same (many better) than the supertechs. Don't get me wrong, any of those filters would do the trick but I would probably keep them for short change intervals etc.
You say for shorter OCI's, the filter's effiency will go up in time.
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
the Microguard and Supertech claim 70-80% efficiency at 20 Microns.
Which is pretty terrible compared to the competition, if accurate. Why is everyone so excited about these new Supertechs?
+1 There are a lot of filters out there that are the same (many better) than the supertechs. Don't get me wrong, any of those filters would do the trick but I would probably keep them for short change intervals etc.
You say for shorter OCI's, the filter's effiency will go up in time.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Yikes. That is terrible efficiency. Thanks for the info.
Agreed. FWIW, since you asked about the Napa Silver, this shows the same internal construction as the Napa Proselect, Microgard, and current Wix made Supertech for my application. Not all model numbers use the combo valve, but many do.
Napa Silver Link
In comparison, I'd rather use the second generation Champion Laboratories ecore with cage supports every 45° and 92% efficiency @ 20 microns (per Motorking's posts) STP S2 than the Wix-made Supertech ST2. But, I don't care for the combo valve on the ecore design either. I used some prior generation Supertech ST16 and STP S16 ecores (cage supports every 90°) on my prior truck years ago when I lived in a warm climate (SE Louisiana). I never had a media failure (easy to look for by looking down the center tube after removal) but found the ADBV function always non-existant at the end of a 3K to 5K miles O/FCI.
For me, the current best option entry level filter would be the Champion Laboratories made Carquest Red R84899 (and not the prior Wix made Carquest Red R84899). The Champ R84899 has 94% efficiency @ 20 microns, metal end caps, metal center tube, and separate ADBV and BPV (no combo valve).
What I have on hand for my winter use are Mopar MO-899 oil filters I bought for $2.99 at O'Reilly with $5 off coupons (shelf price $7.99). Metal end caps, separate ADBV & BPV, base end BPV for my vertical dome-down application to avoid potential emulsion issues near the BPV in low temperatures, and 94% efficiency @ 20 microns. They've retained ADBV function over the course of my O/FCI's, and no startup noises in 10°F and below temperatures like I've had with a Mobil 1 M-210 filter in the prior winter here.
Yikes. That is terrible efficiency. Thanks for the info.
Agreed. FWIW, since you asked about the Napa Silver, this shows the same internal construction as the Napa Proselect, Microgard, and current Wix made Supertech for my application. Not all model numbers use the combo valve, but many do.
Napa Silver Link
In comparison, I'd rather use the second generation Champion Laboratories ecore with cage supports every 45° and 92% efficiency @ 20 microns (per Motorking's posts) STP S2 than the Wix-made Supertech ST2. But, I don't care for the combo valve on the ecore design either. I used some prior generation Supertech ST16 and STP S16 ecores (cage supports every 90°) on my prior truck years ago when I lived in a warm climate (SE Louisiana). I never had a media failure (easy to look for by looking down the center tube after removal) but found the ADBV function always non-existant at the end of a 3K to 5K miles O/FCI.
For me, the current best option entry level filter would be the Champion Laboratories made Carquest Red R84899 (and not the prior Wix made Carquest Red R84899). The Champ R84899 has 94% efficiency @ 20 microns, metal end caps, metal center tube, and separate ADBV and BPV (no combo valve).
What I have on hand for my winter use are Mopar MO-899 oil filters I bought for $2.99 at O'Reilly with $5 off coupons (shelf price $7.99). Metal end caps, separate ADBV & BPV, base end BPV for my vertical dome-down application to avoid potential emulsion issues near the BPV in low temperatures, and 94% efficiency @ 20 microns. They've retained ADBV function over the course of my O/FCI's, and no startup noises in 10°F and below temperatures like I've had with a Mobil 1 M-210 filter in the prior winter here.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Yikes. That is terrible efficiency. Thanks for the info.
I just can't see it as "terrible."
What it means in real-life is this: 99% efficiency vs 80% efficiency means it takes three passes through the filter for the 80% to do what the 99% does in one pass. Loafing at US highway speed limits in overdrive (longest comparative difference), this means 90 seconds to clear the 20 micron particles vs 30 seconds. I can live with that.
Here are the clearance rates, pardon me I can't easily link/post the spreadsheet.
But an imaginary 1,000 20mic. particles, 10 are left after 1 pass with a 99% filter. 8 are left after 3 passes through an 80% filer.
with typical fuel pump figures of 5gpm at 3,500 rpm, and a typical sump of 5qts, this means very little real-time difference. Those particles don't stay "forever" in the oil. They continue to get scrubbed out with each subsequent pass. I think this gets overlooked when looking at this issue.
I value this in a filter:
a) sturdily built and will not tear
b) reliable ADBV
c) construction that maximizes filter area
d) would like to see a thread-end bypass, but if enough filter area anyway, not a deal-breaker.
I have no issue with most factory or aftermarket filters if sturdily built, don't tear, ADBV valve works regardless of material, and 1/2 the can is not given over to the bypass device and short-changes filter area. IME the Wix combo valve scores very well on that last point, but poorly on functioning reliably. I used to use these filters in their Napa and Wix Pro-Tec paint jobs, but stopped because of that. Otherwise they are great and if you have a vertical mount or cartridge, go for it.
Yikes. That is terrible efficiency. Thanks for the info.
I just can't see it as "terrible."
What it means in real-life is this: 99% efficiency vs 80% efficiency means it takes three passes through the filter for the 80% to do what the 99% does in one pass. Loafing at US highway speed limits in overdrive (longest comparative difference), this means 90 seconds to clear the 20 micron particles vs 30 seconds. I can live with that.
Here are the clearance rates, pardon me I can't easily link/post the spreadsheet.
But an imaginary 1,000 20mic. particles, 10 are left after 1 pass with a 99% filter. 8 are left after 3 passes through an 80% filer.
with typical fuel pump figures of 5gpm at 3,500 rpm, and a typical sump of 5qts, this means very little real-time difference. Those particles don't stay "forever" in the oil. They continue to get scrubbed out with each subsequent pass. I think this gets overlooked when looking at this issue.
I value this in a filter:
a) sturdily built and will not tear
b) reliable ADBV
c) construction that maximizes filter area
d) would like to see a thread-end bypass, but if enough filter area anyway, not a deal-breaker.
I have no issue with most factory or aftermarket filters if sturdily built, don't tear, ADBV valve works regardless of material, and 1/2 the can is not given over to the bypass device and short-changes filter area. IME the Wix combo valve scores very well on that last point, but poorly on functioning reliably. I used to use these filters in their Napa and Wix Pro-Tec paint jobs, but stopped because of that. Otherwise they are great and if you have a vertical mount or cartridge, go for it.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Yikes. That is terrible efficiency. Thanks for the info.
Agreed. FWIW, since you asked about the Napa Silver, this shows the same internal construction as the Napa Proselect, Microgard, and current Wix made Supertech for my application. Not all model numbers use the combo valve, but many do.
Napa Silver Link
In comparison, I'd rather use the second generation Champion Laboratories ecore with cage supports every 45° and 92% efficiency @ 20 microns (per Motorking's posts) STP S2 than the Wix-made Supertech ST2. But, I don't care for the combo valve on the ecore design either. I used some prior generation Supertech ST16 and STP S16 ecores (cage supports every 90°) on my prior truck years ago when I lived in a warm climate (SE Louisiana). I never had a media failure (easy to look for by looking down the center tube after removal) but found the ADBV function always non-existant at the end of a 3K to 5K miles O/FCI.
For me, the current best option entry level filter would be the Champion Laboratories made Carquest Red R84899 (and not the prior Wix made Carquest Red R84899). The Champ R84899 has 94% efficiency @ 20 microns, metal end caps, metal center tube, and separate ADBV and BPV (no combo valve).
What I have on hand for my winter use are Mopar MO-899 oil filters I bought for $2.99 at O'Reilly with $5 off coupons (shelf price $7.99). Metal end caps, separate ADBV & BPV, base end BPV for my vertical dome-down application to avoid potential emulsion issues near the BPV in low temperatures, and 94% efficiency @ 20 microns. They've retained ADBV function over the course of my O/FCI's, and no startup noises in 10°F and below temperatures like I've had with a Mobil 1 M-210 filter in the prior winter here.
Good info, thanks.
How did you determine the WIX combo valve and eCore combo valve ADBV function was non existent after 3k to 5k miles? Even in Louisiana. If this is true, then what about bypass function? I have an AC Delco PF1250 on the Ranger at roughly 3500 miles, no cold start clatter. I did just notice your prior post on a problem with bypass on the NAPA PS.
Not too long ago I did a Virgin cut and post on the CQ Red. All looked good except for the wide pleat spaces. This looks like an opportunity for a tear.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Yikes. That is terrible efficiency. Thanks for the info.
Agreed. FWIW, since you asked about the Napa Silver, this shows the same internal construction as the Napa Proselect, Microgard, and current Wix made Supertech for my application. Not all model numbers use the combo valve, but many do.
Napa Silver Link
In comparison, I'd rather use the second generation Champion Laboratories ecore with cage supports every 45° and 92% efficiency @ 20 microns (per Motorking's posts) STP S2 than the Wix-made Supertech ST2. But, I don't care for the combo valve on the ecore design either. I used some prior generation Supertech ST16 and STP S16 ecores (cage supports every 90°) on my prior truck years ago when I lived in a warm climate (SE Louisiana). I never had a media failure (easy to look for by looking down the center tube after removal) but found the ADBV function always non-existant at the end of a 3K to 5K miles O/FCI.
For me, the current best option entry level filter would be the Champion Laboratories made Carquest Red R84899 (and not the prior Wix made Carquest Red R84899). The Champ R84899 has 94% efficiency @ 20 microns, metal end caps, metal center tube, and separate ADBV and BPV (no combo valve).
What I have on hand for my winter use are Mopar MO-899 oil filters I bought for $2.99 at O'Reilly with $5 off coupons (shelf price $7.99). Metal end caps, separate ADBV & BPV, base end BPV for my vertical dome-down application to avoid potential emulsion issues near the BPV in low temperatures, and 94% efficiency @ 20 microns. They've retained ADBV function over the course of my O/FCI's, and no startup noises in 10°F and below temperatures like I've had with a Mobil 1 M-210 filter in the prior winter here.
Good info, thanks.
How did you determine the WIX combo valve and eCore combo valve ADBV function was non existent after 3k to 5k miles? Even in Louisiana. If this is true, then what about bypass function? I have an AC Delco PF1250 on the Ranger at roughly 3500 miles, no cold start clatter. I did just notice your prior post on a problem with bypass on the NAPA PS.
Not too long ago I did a Virgin cut and post on the CQ Red. All looked good except for the wide pleat spaces. This looks like an opportunity for a tear.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
How did you determine the WIX combo valve and eCore combo valve ADBV function was non existent after 3k to 5k miles? Even in Louisiana.
Gravity
Prior truck was a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 with a 5.9l (360 in3) engine. Oil filter was mounted at a downward angle on the side of the block like this.
When I would remove a Supertech ST16 or STP S2 ecore, not a drop of oil would run out of the mounting nipple nor the filter. Hydrostatic head drained the galleries above the filter and part of the filter back to the pan overnight before I changed the oil the next day. (I change my oil at ambient temperature, no hot parts to brush up against). When I would remove a Fram PH16 or PureOne PL24651, plenty of oil came out of the filter and mounting nipple during removal; the filter and galleries above the filter remained liquid filled overnight.
In Louisiana I ran 10W-30 year round. My point with the ecore design is I didn't experience media failure but I was in a relatively warm climate. I would not trust a prior generation ecore for winter service where I currently live even with 0W-XX oil due to the extra forces on the unsupported media spans at cold startup in single digit °F and lower temperatures. Maybe the newer generation ecores have enough center area support but I'm not going to run them personally as I don't have good experience with their combo valves anyway.
My current truck is a 2012 Ram with 5,7l (345 in3) V8. The oil filter is vertically mounted dome end down above the steering rack on the passenger's side. When I removed the PS 27899 very little oil came out of the mounting nipple across the outside of the filter case. Removing Mobil 1, PureOne, and Mopar filters always entails a cascade of oil coming out the mounting nipple across the outside of the filter case during removal. My conclusion is the PS 27899 had little if any ADBV function remaining at the end of the run.
My wife's 2012 Mustang 3.7l V6 has a horizontal oil filter mount. The PS27502 combo valve became cockeyed during service. It was dragging against the mounting nipple all through unscrewing the filter, with oil gushing out of the filter inlet holes the whole time. Compromise of bypass function into cockeyed constant bypassing also compromised any ADBV function. I've been running Mobil 1 M1-212 filters on her car since then with no such problems. Oil comes out the mounting nipple during removal but the filter retains oil outside the center tube during removal.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
If this is true, then what about bypass function?
No idea really. Was loss of ADBV function in the ecores a sign of compromise of bypass function into constant bypassing as well, or just compromise of only the ADBV function? I don't know of a way to tell. There wasn't extra resistance of the combo valve dragging along the mounting nipple of the ecores like it was with the PS 27502 during removal - but the Champ and Wix combo valves are different in design (thicknesses are very different) so hard to say.
If ADBV function was compromised the other way, not allowing bypass when bypass is needed, I would expect the ecore to be more sensitive to media failure by cutting against the nylon cage. I didn't see signs of this but I was also using the ecores in a relatively warm climate, so perhaps I never experienced conditions where bypass differential pressure was ever reached. It should be noted the ecore center cage inherently provides less DP restriction than a perforated or louvered metal center tube, so perhaps this also contributes to helping not approach bypass pressures to some (small?) degree, but warm climate is the main factor I'd consider.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Not too long ago I did a Virgin cut and post on the CQ Red. All looked good except for the wide pleat spaces. This looks like an opportunity for a tear.
Perhaps, but I haven't seen the same incidences of tears with 94% efficient @ 20 microns Fram EG media than I have with the Purolator, Bosch, & Motorcraft media, despite wide pleat spacing on various cut open Fram EG's posted here. A risk factor, agreed, but not one commonly borne out on autopsy on the Fram EG, which is in all likelihood the same media used in the CQ Red. Only continued Champ made CQ red autopsies after use will establish a trend in how they perform in service.
FWIW, the Champ CQ Red looks like a Fram EG with metal end caps internally to me, and the CQ Blue looks like a Fram TG with metal end caps internally to me. Same "Engineered For" respective mileage recommendations and media efficiencies.
How did you determine the WIX combo valve and eCore combo valve ADBV function was non existent after 3k to 5k miles? Even in Louisiana.
Gravity
Prior truck was a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 with a 5.9l (360 in3) engine. Oil filter was mounted at a downward angle on the side of the block like this.
When I would remove a Supertech ST16 or STP S2 ecore, not a drop of oil would run out of the mounting nipple nor the filter. Hydrostatic head drained the galleries above the filter and part of the filter back to the pan overnight before I changed the oil the next day. (I change my oil at ambient temperature, no hot parts to brush up against). When I would remove a Fram PH16 or PureOne PL24651, plenty of oil came out of the filter and mounting nipple during removal; the filter and galleries above the filter remained liquid filled overnight.
In Louisiana I ran 10W-30 year round. My point with the ecore design is I didn't experience media failure but I was in a relatively warm climate. I would not trust a prior generation ecore for winter service where I currently live even with 0W-XX oil due to the extra forces on the unsupported media spans at cold startup in single digit °F and lower temperatures. Maybe the newer generation ecores have enough center area support but I'm not going to run them personally as I don't have good experience with their combo valves anyway.
My current truck is a 2012 Ram with 5,7l (345 in3) V8. The oil filter is vertically mounted dome end down above the steering rack on the passenger's side. When I removed the PS 27899 very little oil came out of the mounting nipple across the outside of the filter case. Removing Mobil 1, PureOne, and Mopar filters always entails a cascade of oil coming out the mounting nipple across the outside of the filter case during removal. My conclusion is the PS 27899 had little if any ADBV function remaining at the end of the run.
My wife's 2012 Mustang 3.7l V6 has a horizontal oil filter mount. The PS27502 combo valve became cockeyed during service. It was dragging against the mounting nipple all through unscrewing the filter, with oil gushing out of the filter inlet holes the whole time. Compromise of bypass function into cockeyed constant bypassing also compromised any ADBV function. I've been running Mobil 1 M1-212 filters on her car since then with no such problems. Oil comes out the mounting nipple during removal but the filter retains oil outside the center tube during removal.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
If this is true, then what about bypass function?
No idea really. Was loss of ADBV function in the ecores a sign of compromise of bypass function into constant bypassing as well, or just compromise of only the ADBV function? I don't know of a way to tell. There wasn't extra resistance of the combo valve dragging along the mounting nipple of the ecores like it was with the PS 27502 during removal - but the Champ and Wix combo valves are different in design (thicknesses are very different) so hard to say.
If ADBV function was compromised the other way, not allowing bypass when bypass is needed, I would expect the ecore to be more sensitive to media failure by cutting against the nylon cage. I didn't see signs of this but I was also using the ecores in a relatively warm climate, so perhaps I never experienced conditions where bypass differential pressure was ever reached. It should be noted the ecore center cage inherently provides less DP restriction than a perforated or louvered metal center tube, so perhaps this also contributes to helping not approach bypass pressures to some (small?) degree, but warm climate is the main factor I'd consider.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Not too long ago I did a Virgin cut and post on the CQ Red. All looked good except for the wide pleat spaces. This looks like an opportunity for a tear.
Perhaps, but I haven't seen the same incidences of tears with 94% efficient @ 20 microns Fram EG media than I have with the Purolator, Bosch, & Motorcraft media, despite wide pleat spacing on various cut open Fram EG's posted here. A risk factor, agreed, but not one commonly borne out on autopsy on the Fram EG, which is in all likelihood the same media used in the CQ Red. Only continued Champ made CQ red autopsies after use will establish a trend in how they perform in service.
FWIW, the Champ CQ Red looks like a Fram EG with metal end caps internally to me, and the CQ Blue looks like a Fram TG with metal end caps internally to me. Same "Engineered For" respective mileage recommendations and media efficiencies.
Originally Posted By: Or
What it means in real-life is this: 99% efficiency vs 80% efficiency means it takes three passes through the filter for the 80% to do what the 99% does in one pass. Loafing at US highway speed limits in overdrive (longest comparative difference), this means 90 seconds to clear the 20 micron particles vs 30 seconds. I can live with that.
Here are the clearance rates, pardon me I can't easily link/post the spreadsheet.
But an imaginary 1,000 20mic. particles, 10 are left after 1 pass with a 99% filter. 8 are left after 3 passes through an 80% filer.
with typical fuel pump figures of 5gpm at 3,500 rpm, and a typical sump of 5qts, this means very little real-time difference. Those particles don't stay "forever" in the oil. They continue to get scrubbed out with each subsequent pass. I think this gets overlooked when looking at this issue.
I'd rather have the particles that might go through the engine 3 or 4 times due to an inefficient filter get caught instead on the first pass through a more efficient filter. Time has nothing to do with it ... but how many times the same particle goes through the engine over and over does.
What it means in real-life is this: 99% efficiency vs 80% efficiency means it takes three passes through the filter for the 80% to do what the 99% does in one pass. Loafing at US highway speed limits in overdrive (longest comparative difference), this means 90 seconds to clear the 20 micron particles vs 30 seconds. I can live with that.
Here are the clearance rates, pardon me I can't easily link/post the spreadsheet.
But an imaginary 1,000 20mic. particles, 10 are left after 1 pass with a 99% filter. 8 are left after 3 passes through an 80% filer.
with typical fuel pump figures of 5gpm at 3,500 rpm, and a typical sump of 5qts, this means very little real-time difference. Those particles don't stay "forever" in the oil. They continue to get scrubbed out with each subsequent pass. I think this gets overlooked when looking at this issue.
I'd rather have the particles that might go through the engine 3 or 4 times due to an inefficient filter get caught instead on the first pass through a more efficient filter. Time has nothing to do with it ... but how many times the same particle goes through the engine over and over does.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
How did you determine the WIX combo valve and eCore combo valve ADBV function was non existent after 3k to 5k miles? Even in Louisiana.
Gravity
Prior truck was a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 with a 5.9l (360 in3) engine. Oil filter was mounted at a downward angle on the side of the block like this.
When I would remove a Supertech ST16 or STP S2 ecore, not a drop of oil would run out of the mounting nipple nor the filter. Hydrostatic head drained the galleries above the filter and part of the filter back to the pan overnight before I changed the oil the next day. (I change my oil at ambient temperature, no hot parts to brush up against). When I would remove a Fram PH16 or PureOne PL24651, plenty of oil came out of the filter and mounting nipple during removal; the filter and galleries above the filter remained liquid filled overnight.
In Louisiana I ran 10W-30 year round. My point with the ecore design is I didn't experience media failure but I was in a relatively warm climate. I would not trust a prior generation ecore for winter service where I currently live even with 0W-XX oil due to the extra forces on the unsupported media spans at cold startup in single digit °F and lower temperatures. Maybe the newer generation ecores have enough center area support but I'm not going to run them personally as I don't have good experience with their combo valves anyway.
My current truck is a 2012 Ram with 5,7l (345 in3) V8. The oil filter is vertically mounted dome end down above the steering rack on the passenger's side. When I removed the PS 27899 very little oil came out of the mounting nipple across the outside of the filter case. Removing Mobil 1, PureOne, and Mopar filters always entails a cascade of oil coming out the mounting nipple across the outside of the filter case during removal. My conclusion is the PS 27899 had little if any ADBV function remaining at the end of the run.
My wife's 2012 Mustang 3.7l V6 has a horizontal oil filter mount. The PS27502 combo valve became cockeyed during service. It was dragging against the mounting nipple all through unscrewing the filter, with oil gushing out of the filter inlet holes the whole time. Compromise of bypass function into cockeyed constant bypassing also compromised any ADBV function. I've been running Mobil 1 M1-212 filters on her car since then with no such problems. Oil comes out the mounting nipple during removal but the filter retains oil outside the center tube during removal.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
If this is true, then what about bypass function?
No idea really. Was loss of ADBV function in the ecores a sign of compromise of bypass function into constant bypassing as well, or just compromise of only the ADBV function? I don't know of a way to tell. There wasn't extra resistance of the combo valve dragging along the mounting nipple of the ecores like it was with the PS 27502 during removal - but the Champ and Wix combo valves are different in design (thicknesses are very different) so hard to say.
If ADBV function was compromised the other way, not allowing bypass when bypass is needed, I would expect the ecore to be more sensitive to media failure by cutting against the nylon cage. I didn't see signs of this but I was also using the ecores in a relatively warm climate, so perhaps I never experienced conditions where bypass differential pressure was ever reached. It should be noted the ecore center cage inherently provides less DP restriction than a perforated or louvered metal center tube, so perhaps this also contributes to helping not approach bypass pressures to some (small?) degree, but warm climate is the main factor I'd consider.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Not too long ago I did a Virgin cut and post on the CQ Red. All looked good except for the wide pleat spaces. This looks like an opportunity for a tear.
Perhaps, but I haven't seen the same incidences of tears with 94% efficient @ 20 microns Fram EG media than I have with the Purolator, Bosch, & Motorcraft media, despite wide pleat spacing on various cut open Fram EG's posted here. A risk factor, agreed, but not one commonly borne out on autopsy on the Fram EG, which is in all likelihood the same media used in the CQ Red. Only continued Champ made CQ red autopsies after use will establish a trend in how they perform in service.
FWIW, the Champ CQ Red looks like a Fram EG with metal end caps internally to me, and the CQ Blue looks like a Fram TG with metal end caps internally to me. Same "Engineered For" respective mileage recommendations and media efficiencies.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Since I change oil hot, I don't see the loss of ADBV function. I also don't hear any startup clatter. I like your detection idea. That is good proof.
I suspect if the combo valve loses ADBV, it would also have impaired relief valve function too.
In case of eCore, The combo valve can not come in contact with the mounting nipple. If it did, it would be a major eCore failure.
For filters with separate ADBV and RV, the durometer of the ADBV can be tweaked by the manufacturer.
I agree that a used filter cut and post is the acid test.
If I lived North of Dallas, I would not use an eCore either. Not worth a bypass failure when the oil is cold.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
How did you determine the WIX combo valve and eCore combo valve ADBV function was non existent after 3k to 5k miles? Even in Louisiana.
Gravity
Prior truck was a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 with a 5.9l (360 in3) engine. Oil filter was mounted at a downward angle on the side of the block like this.
When I would remove a Supertech ST16 or STP S2 ecore, not a drop of oil would run out of the mounting nipple nor the filter. Hydrostatic head drained the galleries above the filter and part of the filter back to the pan overnight before I changed the oil the next day. (I change my oil at ambient temperature, no hot parts to brush up against). When I would remove a Fram PH16 or PureOne PL24651, plenty of oil came out of the filter and mounting nipple during removal; the filter and galleries above the filter remained liquid filled overnight.
In Louisiana I ran 10W-30 year round. My point with the ecore design is I didn't experience media failure but I was in a relatively warm climate. I would not trust a prior generation ecore for winter service where I currently live even with 0W-XX oil due to the extra forces on the unsupported media spans at cold startup in single digit °F and lower temperatures. Maybe the newer generation ecores have enough center area support but I'm not going to run them personally as I don't have good experience with their combo valves anyway.
My current truck is a 2012 Ram with 5,7l (345 in3) V8. The oil filter is vertically mounted dome end down above the steering rack on the passenger's side. When I removed the PS 27899 very little oil came out of the mounting nipple across the outside of the filter case. Removing Mobil 1, PureOne, and Mopar filters always entails a cascade of oil coming out the mounting nipple across the outside of the filter case during removal. My conclusion is the PS 27899 had little if any ADBV function remaining at the end of the run.
My wife's 2012 Mustang 3.7l V6 has a horizontal oil filter mount. The PS27502 combo valve became cockeyed during service. It was dragging against the mounting nipple all through unscrewing the filter, with oil gushing out of the filter inlet holes the whole time. Compromise of bypass function into cockeyed constant bypassing also compromised any ADBV function. I've been running Mobil 1 M1-212 filters on her car since then with no such problems. Oil comes out the mounting nipple during removal but the filter retains oil outside the center tube during removal.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
If this is true, then what about bypass function?
No idea really. Was loss of ADBV function in the ecores a sign of compromise of bypass function into constant bypassing as well, or just compromise of only the ADBV function? I don't know of a way to tell. There wasn't extra resistance of the combo valve dragging along the mounting nipple of the ecores like it was with the PS 27502 during removal - but the Champ and Wix combo valves are different in design (thicknesses are very different) so hard to say.
If ADBV function was compromised the other way, not allowing bypass when bypass is needed, I would expect the ecore to be more sensitive to media failure by cutting against the nylon cage. I didn't see signs of this but I was also using the ecores in a relatively warm climate, so perhaps I never experienced conditions where bypass differential pressure was ever reached. It should be noted the ecore center cage inherently provides less DP restriction than a perforated or louvered metal center tube, so perhaps this also contributes to helping not approach bypass pressures to some (small?) degree, but warm climate is the main factor I'd consider.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Not too long ago I did a Virgin cut and post on the CQ Red. All looked good except for the wide pleat spaces. This looks like an opportunity for a tear.
Perhaps, but I haven't seen the same incidences of tears with 94% efficient @ 20 microns Fram EG media than I have with the Purolator, Bosch, & Motorcraft media, despite wide pleat spacing on various cut open Fram EG's posted here. A risk factor, agreed, but not one commonly borne out on autopsy on the Fram EG, which is in all likelihood the same media used in the CQ Red. Only continued Champ made CQ red autopsies after use will establish a trend in how they perform in service.
FWIW, the Champ CQ Red looks like a Fram EG with metal end caps internally to me, and the CQ Blue looks like a Fram TG with metal end caps internally to me. Same "Engineered For" respective mileage recommendations and media efficiencies.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Since I change oil hot, I don't see the loss of ADBV function. I also don't hear any startup clatter. I like your detection idea. That is good proof.
I suspect if the combo valve loses ADBV, it would also have impaired relief valve function too.
In case of eCore, The combo valve can not come in contact with the mounting nipple. If it did, it would be a major eCore failure.
For filters with separate ADBV and RV, the durometer of the ADBV can be tweaked by the manufacturer.
I agree that a used filter cut and post is the acid test.
If I lived North of Dallas, I would not use an eCore either. Not worth a bypass failure when the oil is cold.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Since I change oil hot, I don't see the loss of ADBV function. I also don't hear any startup clatter. I like your detection idea. That is good proof.
I would only hear startup clatter if my old truck had sat for several days like in an airport parking lot for a week or two when travelling. I think the warmer climate allowed the oil to refill the empty spaces quickly enough in most cases to not get clatter and an overnight sit left enough 10W-30 attached to things to run until the empty spaces were refilled. That 360 was still going strong when I sold that truck in 2014.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
I suspect if the combo valve loses ADBV, it would also have impaired relief valve function too.
I don't think that was the case with the Napa PS 57899 on my truck. That filter was installed in Jan. 2014 with National syn blend 5W-20 and we had record low temperatures and snows the remainder of that winter. I did have some start up clatter at very low temperatures, but no other unpleasant noises. There was no dragging of the combo valve against the mounting spindle when removed.
October 2014 I installed a Mobil 1 M1-210 and PPPP 5W-20. We had another record cold winter. Not only did I have some start up clatter at very low temperatures, three times I had horrible momentary metal on metal screeching immediately on startup. This screeching only happened on the first start of the day when the truck had been outside in temperatures less than 10°F. I thought a lot about this. My truck sees very few highway miles and lots of short trips in winter. The vertical orientation of the filter would allow emulsion and free water (if present) to accumulate at the dome end of the filter. The Mobil 1 filter uses the same BPV as the Fram filters, with the spring and legs projecting into the dome end instead of the center tube. My conclusion is the BPV literally got frozen shut in these conditions with where the spring & legs project requiring extra breakaway force to open then once broken free gave the center tube an immediate shot of emulsion and / or ice. I decided from then on I would run a base end bypass oil filter in winter on this truck.
October 2015 I installed a Mopar MO-899 and PPPP 0W-20. Thus far, no valve clatter and more importantly no screeching this winter. Although this ranks as the 3rd warmest winter on record for this area, we had spells of less than 10°F overnight temperatures. I think the PPPP 0W-20 solved the valve clatter and the MO-899 solved the screeching, just like the base end bypass PS 27899 had no screeching even in record winter. So I think the PS 27899 I used maintained BPV function when needed even though it lost ADBV function by the end of the run.
The combo valve design is the only base end bypass filter Wix makes for my truck. The Wix 57899 and Napa Gold 7899 have dome end bypass. I would not use a Wix XP / Napa Platinum due to their low efficiency. I do not want to run a Motorcraft FL-820S due to the number with torn media as well as the oddball number of case flutes not fitting my end cap style filter wrench. Thus I settled on the Mopar MO-899. I ran one last summer for 5K miles with no loss of ADBV function even though it's a nitrile ADBV, so that's what I ran this winter and will run in coming winters.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
For filters with separate ADBV and RV, the durometer of the ADBV can be tweaked by the manufacturer.
Plus there are different grades of nitrile available. Car51 did a recent C&P of a QS filter with 8K service with a perfectly flexible nitrile ADBV, where other Purolator jobber lines have poor autopsies in 5K miles or less. Motorking asserted all nitrile ADBV's turn into rocks in 6K miles of service, so I wouldn't use any Fram, Champ, or now Wix made filter with nitrile ADBV for more than 5K personally. However I wouldn't hesitate to run a Mopar or QS filter with nitrile ADBV up to the 8K miles OEM change interval on my truck.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
If I lived North of Dallas, I would not use an eCore either. Not worth a bypass failure when the oil is cold.
Nor media failure from cutting the media against the cage. I have no idea how much calculation went on in the design of the original ecore cage nor in the revised ecore cage. However field use showed whatever the original design was calculated for it didn't always stand up to field conditions. I suspect doubling the number of supports was a simple decision not involving a whole lot of calculations and there hasn't been enough time in field to say that's solved the issue yet IMO.
It's interesting to see that in the Napa PS 21516 application where Wix uses a separate base end BPV, the new Wix made Supertech ST3600 uses a separate dome end BPV. My ZTR takes a PH3614 filter but I'm going to chamge that soon for the season. I'll probably use a QS3600 $1.99 filter. For those of us who have Menard's stores as well as Walmart stores in our area, I don't see much competition from Supertech oil filters vs. the QS filters manufactured to Shell specs with 95% efficiency @ 20 microns, separate BPV & ADBV, and everyday price of $2.84 (sale price often for $1.99).
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Since I change oil hot, I don't see the loss of ADBV function. I also don't hear any startup clatter. I like your detection idea. That is good proof.
I would only hear startup clatter if my old truck had sat for several days like in an airport parking lot for a week or two when travelling. I think the warmer climate allowed the oil to refill the empty spaces quickly enough in most cases to not get clatter and an overnight sit left enough 10W-30 attached to things to run until the empty spaces were refilled. That 360 was still going strong when I sold that truck in 2014.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
I suspect if the combo valve loses ADBV, it would also have impaired relief valve function too.
I don't think that was the case with the Napa PS 57899 on my truck. That filter was installed in Jan. 2014 with National syn blend 5W-20 and we had record low temperatures and snows the remainder of that winter. I did have some start up clatter at very low temperatures, but no other unpleasant noises. There was no dragging of the combo valve against the mounting spindle when removed.
October 2014 I installed a Mobil 1 M1-210 and PPPP 5W-20. We had another record cold winter. Not only did I have some start up clatter at very low temperatures, three times I had horrible momentary metal on metal screeching immediately on startup. This screeching only happened on the first start of the day when the truck had been outside in temperatures less than 10°F. I thought a lot about this. My truck sees very few highway miles and lots of short trips in winter. The vertical orientation of the filter would allow emulsion and free water (if present) to accumulate at the dome end of the filter. The Mobil 1 filter uses the same BPV as the Fram filters, with the spring and legs projecting into the dome end instead of the center tube. My conclusion is the BPV literally got frozen shut in these conditions with where the spring & legs project requiring extra breakaway force to open then once broken free gave the center tube an immediate shot of emulsion and / or ice. I decided from then on I would run a base end bypass oil filter in winter on this truck.
October 2015 I installed a Mopar MO-899 and PPPP 0W-20. Thus far, no valve clatter and more importantly no screeching this winter. Although this ranks as the 3rd warmest winter on record for this area, we had spells of less than 10°F overnight temperatures. I think the PPPP 0W-20 solved the valve clatter and the MO-899 solved the screeching, just like the base end bypass PS 27899 had no screeching even in record winter. So I think the PS 27899 I used maintained BPV function when needed even though it lost ADBV function by the end of the run.
The combo valve design is the only base end bypass filter Wix makes for my truck. The Wix 57899 and Napa Gold 7899 have dome end bypass. I would not use a Wix XP / Napa Platinum due to their low efficiency. I do not want to run a Motorcraft FL-820S due to the number with torn media as well as the oddball number of case flutes not fitting my end cap style filter wrench. Thus I settled on the Mopar MO-899. I ran one last summer for 5K miles with no loss of ADBV function even though it's a nitrile ADBV, so that's what I ran this winter and will run in coming winters.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
For filters with separate ADBV and RV, the durometer of the ADBV can be tweaked by the manufacturer.
Plus there are different grades of nitrile available. Car51 did a recent C&P of a QS filter with 8K service with a perfectly flexible nitrile ADBV, where other Purolator jobber lines have poor autopsies in 5K miles or less. Motorking asserted all nitrile ADBV's turn into rocks in 6K miles of service, so I wouldn't use any Fram, Champ, or now Wix made filter with nitrile ADBV for more than 5K personally. However I wouldn't hesitate to run a Mopar or QS filter with nitrile ADBV up to the 8K miles OEM change interval on my truck.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
If I lived North of Dallas, I would not use an eCore either. Not worth a bypass failure when the oil is cold.
Nor media failure from cutting the media against the cage. I have no idea how much calculation went on in the design of the original ecore cage nor in the revised ecore cage. However field use showed whatever the original design was calculated for it didn't always stand up to field conditions. I suspect doubling the number of supports was a simple decision not involving a whole lot of calculations and there hasn't been enough time in field to say that's solved the issue yet IMO.
It's interesting to see that in the Napa PS 21516 application where Wix uses a separate base end BPV, the new Wix made Supertech ST3600 uses a separate dome end BPV. My ZTR takes a PH3614 filter but I'm going to chamge that soon for the season. I'll probably use a QS3600 $1.99 filter. For those of us who have Menard's stores as well as Walmart stores in our area, I don't see much competition from Supertech oil filters vs. the QS filters manufactured to Shell specs with 95% efficiency @ 20 microns, separate BPV & ADBV, and everyday price of $2.84 (sale price often for $1.99).
Nyogtha - I have never seen a QS filter. I'm not sure anyone carries them here.
I have several Champ PH820 old style ecores, 3 WIX 51372, 2 AC Delco PF1250, 2 more FL820S, 2 PureOnes, 1 STP S2 and 1 PartsPlus PH820 to use up.
The FL820S with rust on the outlet side of the dome end cap will either go back to Motorcraft or the trash.
I may dissect the STP S2 and the PartsPlus PH820.
The Pure Ones are for comparisons to the new Puro.
I am thinking the WIX 51372 is on the short list of my next goto filter. Others I am considering are PH2, TG2 and XG2. Maybe CQ Blue. The MOPAR filter sounds interesting and is readily available.
Since I don't short trip, condensation is not a factor and dome end bypass would be OK.
In my climate, the rest should go 5k miles / 90 days on conventional 5W30 without issue. If they don't then they are not fit for duty. If a particular make and model is a problem, I won't hesitate to trash the inventory and move on.
I have several Champ PH820 old style ecores, 3 WIX 51372, 2 AC Delco PF1250, 2 more FL820S, 2 PureOnes, 1 STP S2 and 1 PartsPlus PH820 to use up.
The FL820S with rust on the outlet side of the dome end cap will either go back to Motorcraft or the trash.
I may dissect the STP S2 and the PartsPlus PH820.
The Pure Ones are for comparisons to the new Puro.
I am thinking the WIX 51372 is on the short list of my next goto filter. Others I am considering are PH2, TG2 and XG2. Maybe CQ Blue. The MOPAR filter sounds interesting and is readily available.
Since I don't short trip, condensation is not a factor and dome end bypass would be OK.
In my climate, the rest should go 5k miles / 90 days on conventional 5W30 without issue. If they don't then they are not fit for duty. If a particular make and model is a problem, I won't hesitate to trash the inventory and move on.
Shouldn't be any problem in your climate for any of those configurations.
Here's a Wix 51372 cut open - it has dome end bypass
http://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2240591
Might consider changing one of each model in your stash at ambient temperature to test ADBV function at the end of a run if your application mounts the filter with the dome end pointing down.
Here's a Wix 51372 cut open - it has dome end bypass
http://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2240591
Might consider changing one of each model in your stash at ambient temperature to test ADBV function at the end of a run if your application mounts the filter with the dome end pointing down.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Yikes. That is terrible efficiency. Thanks for the info.
Agreed. FWIW, since you asked about the Napa Silver, this shows the same internal construction as the Napa Proselect, Microgard, and current Wix made Supertech for my application. Not all model numbers use the combo valve, but many do.
Napa Silver Link
In comparison, I'd rather use the second generation Champion Laboratories ecore with cage supports every 45° and 92% efficiency @ 20 microns (per Motorking's posts) STP S2 than the Wix-made Supertech ST2. But, I don't care for the combo valve on the ecore design either. I used some prior generation Supertech ST16 and STP S16 ecores (cage supports every 90°) on my prior truck years ago when I lived in a warm climate (SE Louisiana). I never had a media failure (easy to look for by looking down the center tube after removal) but found the ADBV function always non-existant at the end of a 3K to 5K miles O/FCI.
For me, the current best option entry level filter would be the Champion Laboratories made Carquest Red R84899 (and not the prior Wix made Carquest Red R84899). The Champ R84899 has 94% efficiency @ 20 microns, metal end caps, metal center tube, and separate ADBV and BPV (no combo valve).
What I have on hand for my winter use are Mopar MO-899 oil filters I bought for $2.99 at O'Reilly with $5 off coupons (shelf price $7.99). Metal end caps, separate ADBV & BPV, base end BPV for my vertical dome-down application to avoid potential emulsion issues near the BPV in low temperatures, and 94% efficiency @ 20 microns. They've retained ADBV function over the course of my O/FCI's, and no startup noises in 10°F and below temperatures like I've had with a Mobil 1 M-210 filter in the prior winter here.
Great Video.. I see these filters at work all the time.. i never knew they were that good.
Also didnt that guy Jay used to be a FRAM REP???
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Yikes. That is terrible efficiency. Thanks for the info.
Agreed. FWIW, since you asked about the Napa Silver, this shows the same internal construction as the Napa Proselect, Microgard, and current Wix made Supertech for my application. Not all model numbers use the combo valve, but many do.
Napa Silver Link
In comparison, I'd rather use the second generation Champion Laboratories ecore with cage supports every 45° and 92% efficiency @ 20 microns (per Motorking's posts) STP S2 than the Wix-made Supertech ST2. But, I don't care for the combo valve on the ecore design either. I used some prior generation Supertech ST16 and STP S16 ecores (cage supports every 90°) on my prior truck years ago when I lived in a warm climate (SE Louisiana). I never had a media failure (easy to look for by looking down the center tube after removal) but found the ADBV function always non-existant at the end of a 3K to 5K miles O/FCI.
For me, the current best option entry level filter would be the Champion Laboratories made Carquest Red R84899 (and not the prior Wix made Carquest Red R84899). The Champ R84899 has 94% efficiency @ 20 microns, metal end caps, metal center tube, and separate ADBV and BPV (no combo valve).
What I have on hand for my winter use are Mopar MO-899 oil filters I bought for $2.99 at O'Reilly with $5 off coupons (shelf price $7.99). Metal end caps, separate ADBV & BPV, base end BPV for my vertical dome-down application to avoid potential emulsion issues near the BPV in low temperatures, and 94% efficiency @ 20 microns. They've retained ADBV function over the course of my O/FCI's, and no startup noises in 10°F and below temperatures like I've had with a Mobil 1 M-210 filter in the prior winter here.
Great Video.. I see these filters at work all the time.. i never knew they were that good.
Also didnt that guy Jay used to be a FRAM REP???
He's evidently the Technical Training Director for some of brands now owned Rank Group as UCI-Fram. You know Fram and saw here Champion Laboratories.
http://www.uci-fram.com/
Here's Autolite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co4VanZ-hhM
John Meyers holds a similar position for Prestone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwoA07vWp7I
http://www.uci-fram.com/
Here's Autolite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co4VanZ-hhM
John Meyers holds a similar position for Prestone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwoA07vWp7I
- Status
