Wix XP & Napa Platinum

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I did say Purolator's Bosch D+, but did any besides Fram make 99.9%@20? I believe this is the new Fram number? High efficiency filters should plug up faster, sort of how it works since they catch more. But they say no doesn't plug up faster, even extend the use. Miracle workers at Fram Group LLC. Maybe the two ply media has a lot to do with it.


Yep, 2-ply full synthetic media is the key. Full synthetic media can flow a lot better and still be very efficient and hold more debris because it filters throughout the depth of the media vs just on the surface like what cellulose media does.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
I hear you on the efficiency ratings being limited to just a few filters, but at least Fram is telling us something. Though the statement is not well worded.

That's the problem, and the competition is worded similarly. At least Wix used to give us beta ratios for each filter. Now, they've been whitewashed.

901Memphis: It's nice to see that Fram, too, is ready to answer emails.

ZeeOSix: Of course, listing three filters is better than listing only one as a representative, but my point still stands.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Garak
ZeeOSix: Of course, listing three filters is better than listing only one as a representative, but my point still stands.


If you look at the 3 sizes of filters Fram references in their efficiency claim, they cover a range of sizes from smaller to larger. If there is any efficiency performance difference based on size/media area, this helps to cover that factor when the ISO test is based on a range of filter sizes.

Their efficiency claim is the average efficiency of all three combined, and at 99+% they would all have to be right in there close to each other because there is no room between 99% and 100% for a large one to make up the difference of the smaller filters if they were much below 99%.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Garak
ZeeOSix: Of course, listing three filters is better than listing only one as a representative, but my point still stands.
If you look at the 3 sizes of filters Fram references in their efficiency claim, they cover a range of sizes from smaller to larger. If there is any efficiency performance difference based on size/media area, this helps to cover that factor when the ISO test is based on a range of filter sizes. Their efficiency claim is the average efficiency of all three combined, and at 99+% they would all have to be right in there close to each other because there is no room between 99% and 100% for a large one to make up the difference of the smaller filters if they were much below 99%.
You are both correct. I seem to recall that MotorKing stated FRAM was going to update the packaging so the efficiency ratings were on every filter?

 

[901Memphis]

Originally Posted By: Motorking

We have been testing over 35 part numbers to be sure that we are consistently at or above 99%@20 microns. All Ultra and Tg filters are 99-99.9%@20 microns and when we go through a package redesign later this year, the box will lose the disclaimer of ISO 4548-12 of average of three part numbers. We keep getting accused of using only stats favorable to us, this will be an average of 35 part numbers instead of three.



Here is the reply from the previous email to Motorking about the issue

 

[Plawan]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Later on today ZeeOSix will be here to explain to you how the Wix XP has an efficiency rating of 50% at 20 micron and how you're putting your engine at great risk by using that filter. Then after that he'll try to sway you towards the Fram Ultra. Keep in mind the width of a human hair is 40 micron.

Now come on ... I've never said using a Wix XP or NAPA Platinum would be "putting your engine at great risk". I just relay that Wix specifies an efficiency of 50% @ 20 microns which isn't very good by filtering standards. People can make up their own mind from the info.

You put that Platinum on yet?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If you look at the 3 sizes of filters Fram references in their efficiency claim, they cover a range of sizes from smaller to larger. If there is any efficiency performance difference based on size/media area, this helps to cover that factor when the ISO test is based on a range of filter sizes.

Oh, I certainly agree. I'm not suggesting, or even claiming it's likely, that one part number Fram Ultra is 99+% efficient at whatever level, and the next one on the shelf is at 50% or something like that. Given that all are using the same media, it's obviously going to be pretty darned close, with dirt holding capacity being the major difference, based upon size. I'm just noting that we don't see individual efficiency ratings for each part number from most manufacturers.

Wix muddied their data, and Hasting/Baldwin will give you the numbers, but you have to ask for them.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Plawan
You put that Platinum on yet?

50% @ 20 microns (WIX's own claim) could certainly translate out to 99% @ 35 microns depending on the specific efficiency vs particle size curve for that media.

BTW - Merkava_4 went to the dark side and went for the Ultra instead.

 

[Merkava_4]

ZeeOSix just happens to be available two years later to answer any follow up questions.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
ZeeOSix just happens to be available two years later to answer any follow up questions.

Time flies when your having fun. How you liking those Ultras so far?

 

[Nate1979]

I would ask Wix customer service to verify that O'Reilly's data before betting it's right or not.