Recent Topics
Ten years ago today
by UncleS2
07/23/14 05:55 PM
Change Acura TSX ATF Filter?
by artbuc
07/23/14 04:45 PM
Honest opinions on these two tires ?
by OtisBlkR1
07/23/14 04:42 PM
Fram TG8A (25K miles)
by stang5
07/23/14 04:35 PM
What is the latest on the TWC/Comcast deal?
by redhat
07/23/14 03:25 PM
2015 Lexus NX 200t - New turbo using TGMO 0W-20?
by CATERHAM
07/23/14 03:08 PM
06 Ford Focus commuter
by tmorris1
07/23/14 02:02 PM
Why would you get a scangauge....
by Nick R
07/23/14 01:39 PM
H-D Trans Fluid: Amsoil MCV 20W-50 or SVT 75W-110
by SwedishRider
07/23/14 12:08 PM
Sludge, Conventional oil, DI engines ?
by rbarrios
07/23/14 11:47 AM
Aluminum Alloy Lug Nuts?
by Johnny248
07/23/14 10:32 AM
Comparing two Mobil1 5w30 synthetic oils.
by Proxyon
07/23/14 10:19 AM
Newest Members
Gocoloco, Proxyon, malone55, EAGLE7, Davidedaniel
50723 Registered Users
Who's Online
109 registered (147_Grain, 71Chevyguy, AandPDan, 2009Edge, 2010_FX4, 8 invisible), 2025 Guests and 248 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
50723 Members
64 Forums
216682 Topics
3410409 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#1812071 - 03/10/10 06:29 PM Wix efficiency
mechanicx Offline


Registered: 10/23/09
Posts: 8576
Loc: Ohio
I think Wix filters are constructed well, but no better than a Purolator. I'm not sure about the bypass WIX bypass. They are kind of pricy. I know this has been touched on before but can it be true that WIX filters have such low efficiency? This manufacturer link suggest that the WIX is only 50% efficient at 20 microns and only 93% efficient at 31 microns. This is way worse than even Fram extraguard or the notoriously low effieciency rating ogf the Motorcraft of 80% efficiency at 20 microns.

WIX

Why would anyone pay as much for a WIX as a PI and get lower efficiency than just about any filter known? Also it states flow is 7-9 GPM which seems to be about par for the P!, so increased flow doesn't seem to be provided.

Top
#1812127 - 03/10/10 06:55 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: mechanicx]
Oregoonian Offline


Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 2083
Loc: Bend, Oregon
Go with the Puro PureOne....its the best for effeciency in its price range....and with a SYN...7,500 to 9,000 OCIs depending on your driving habits.

I purchase my PureOnes at Bi-Mart (here in Central Oregon) at $5.79 when they have a $1 off sale ($4.79)....and Purolator has a mail-in rebate (late spring, early summer) of $2 off per PureOne....making the final cost just $2.79.....yes $2.79 because we have no sales tax in Oregon.
_______________________________________________
2003 Ford Focus SE 2.3L / 82K
Valvoline MaxLife Syn 5w30 / OCI 7,000 +/-
Purolator PureOne PA 10241
_________________________
03' Ford Focus SE (2.3L Duratec PZEV)/ 125K +
M1 0w20 AFE / Fram 'Ultra'/OCI: 8k to 10K
Autolite APP103 Dbl. Plat.
ATF: Mercon V w/Lubegard Red


Top
#1812146 - 03/10/10 07:04 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: Oregoonian]
mechanicx Offline


Registered: 10/23/09
Posts: 8576
Loc: Ohio
Yeah I know, I got several of those P1 on sale at Kmart and sent in a rebate too. They were cheaper than wholesale price. I'm just trying to understand why would anyone would run WIX with the low efficiency rating they have?

I have been using Purolators on and off with my cars for as long as I've been driving and changing oil. I just had an inclination they were good, before there was internet and filter studies.

Top
#1812189 - 03/10/10 07:29 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: mechanicx]
AuthorEditor Offline


Registered: 05/30/08
Posts: 1405
Loc: New York
I think oil filter efficiency ratings are very inexact, and in real-world use may not mean much at all. Several large-scale tests I've seen show little difference in results no matter what filter is used. For example, the CA state fleet tests compared a cheap CarQuest filter with a Fram Extended guard for prolonged OCI's up to and over 10,000 miles, and their conclusion was there was no difference between the filters using regular dino oil. The original Bob on here had no problems running without an oil filter. Look at all the UOAs on here with all sorts of filters and all sorts of oil. They are all over the place in terms of results.

However, design and construction seems to play a much larger role. Poor ADBVs can cause start up lags in pressure and knocking. Poorly supported media seems to be the cause of the recent Ecore failure we've been discussing. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can point to any hard evidence that differences in bypass valves really means anything.

Also, you'll note that Wix beta ratios are all over the place. Maybe they are just being more honest in their measurements than some others that claim things rather vague like 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns, when it is very hard to believe that they can maintain that exact same ratio across so many filters.

In short, I think you should look for overall design and construction first, silicone ADBV second, filtration claims third, and then maybe the design of the bypass, though I'm not sure it really means anything. Of course, price figures in there somewhere too.

Top
#1812258 - 03/10/10 08:33 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: AuthorEditor]
mechanicx Offline


Registered: 10/23/09
Posts: 8576
Loc: Ohio
I agree with you to a large extent except for the filter efficiency. I think it has importance over the long haul of an engine. I don't doubt that Purolators and other filters can attain the efficiency they claim. The test is an industry standard.

What I'm not sure of is if efficiency much higher than ~95% makes a whole lot of difference. So to that extent I agree with you efficiency may not matter so much. So I wouldn't have a problem running a oil filter with the efficiency of a Fram or Ecore at a better price, if the construction was right which it isn't. But when a filter only claims 50% efficiency at 20 microns and not that impressive flow, I wouldn't use it when there are better alternatives.

Top
#1812388 - 03/10/10 09:46 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: mechanicx]
Soobs Offline


Registered: 08/14/09
Posts: 240
Loc: Virginia, USA
I think anyone that has used Wix for a long time knows they work well. And anyone that has cut one apart knows they're one of the best constructed filters around.

I had always wondered how much micron ratings were abused in marketing... I was digging around online and found this from July 2003. Old, I know, but probably still just as applicable today with all the ##% efficient claims:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1266886.html?page=2

No More Micron Ratings
Wix is also educating the filter industry one classroom at a time. Currently, the focus of its customer-training program is to abolish the improper use of micron ratings for fluid filter classification. According to Wix, micron ratings are typically calculated by using a procedure called "mean flow pore." But Wix contends that because there is no industry-standard SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) test procedure for a mean flow pore, micron ratings are meaningless and have become only a marketing tool to "distinguish" one filter from another.

Top
#1812462 - 03/10/10 10:29 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: mechanicx]
Soobs Offline


Registered: 08/14/09
Posts: 240
Loc: Virginia, USA
By the way, if I'm reading this beta ratio correctly for the filter in question (Wix 51040 = Beta Ratio: 2/20=15/31) then it's 50% efficient at 15 microns and 95% efficient at 31 microns. That's not bad. How are you getting your percentages?

The Wix filter I just bought for one of my cars has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=6/19. That's 50% efficient at 6 microns and 95% efficient at 19 microns.


Top
#1812472 - 03/10/10 10:36 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: mechanicx]
Soobs Offline


Registered: 08/14/09
Posts: 240
Loc: Virginia, USA
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Why would anyone pay as much for a WIX as a PI and get lower efficiency than just about any filter known? Also it states flow is 7-9 GPM which seems to be about par for the P!, so increased flow doesn't seem to be provided.


That's a max flow rate which is a limitation of the oil filter flow capability. It's not a representation of how well the oil flows through the media. In other words, it may take more or less pressure from an oil pump to push oil through XYZ filter versus a Wix. Max flow rate is unrelated.

Top
#1812480 - 03/10/10 10:38 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: Soobs]
Gary Allan Offline


Registered: 09/28/02
Posts: 39806
Loc: Pottstown, PA
I've abandoned the need for the finest of filters in terms of ratings. I look now at the nominal rating as an indication. The holding capacity would be a good spec to have. That will give you some sense of the life span.



WIX construction is top shelf. Not too much to criticize there.
_________________________
http://lube-direct.com/gallan/

Top
#1812506 - 03/10/10 11:00 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: Soobs]
mechanicx Offline


Registered: 10/23/09
Posts: 8576
Loc: Ohio
Originally Posted By: Soobs
By the way, if I'm reading this beta ratio correctly for the filter in question (Wix 51040 = Beta Ratio: 2/20=15/31) then it's 50% efficient at 15 microns and 95% efficient at 31 microns. That's not bad. How are you getting your percentages?

The Wix filter I just bought for one of my cars has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=6/19. That's 50% efficient at 6 microns and 95% efficient at 19 microns.



I read the beta ratio 2/20=15/31 to mean a beta of 2 at 20 microns and beta 15 at 31 microns. Beta 2 is 50% efficiency. This is also supported by the claim that it is a 21 micron nominal filter. Beta 2 at 15 microns would be more in line with average filters.If instead it was beta 2 at 6 microns that would be a very efficient filter, more efficient than even P1 and it would be a 6 micron nominal filter.

Top
#1812514 - 03/10/10 11:03 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: Soobs]
mechanicx Offline


Registered: 10/23/09
Posts: 8576
Loc: Ohio
Originally Posted By: Soobs
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Why would anyone pay as much for a WIX as a PI and get lower efficiency than just about any filter known? Also it states flow is 7-9 GPM which seems to be about par for the P!, so increased flow doesn't seem to be provided.


That's a max flow rate which is a limitation of the oil filter flow capability. It's not a representation of how well the oil flows through the media. In other words, it may take more or less pressure from an oil pump to push oil through XYZ filter versus a Wix. Max flow rate is unrelated.


Maxflow rate doesn't tell you the restriction or psid, but I'd think there is some correlation between restriction, efficiency and flow rate.

Anyway the purpose of an oil filter is to, well filter. You seem to be arguing the filtering ability isn't important only construction. I think they are both necessary and important. Purolators are just as well constructed plus they have high efficiency.

Top
#1812521 - 03/10/10 11:08 PM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: Gary Allan]
mechanicx Offline


Registered: 10/23/09
Posts: 8576
Loc: Ohio
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I've abandoned the need for the finest of filters in terms of ratings. I look now at the nominal rating as an indication. The holding capacity would be a good spec to have. That will give you some sense of the life span.



WIX construction is top shelf. Not too much to criticize there.


Fair points and we have this info from Purolator for the P1. They said it is a 11 micron nominal filter and has 13 grams of holding capacity iirc. We also got info that it would not go into bypass mode at ~8 gpm of hot oil flow. So that is an indication that it is a fee flowing filter even though it has high efficiency.

Wix claimed the filter in the link is 21 micron nominal filter, and that's the thing I have against them.

Top
#1812752 - 03/11/10 07:39 AM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: mechanicx]
AuthorEditor Offline


Registered: 05/30/08
Posts: 1405
Loc: New York
Here's an old River Rat post explaining the Wix beta ratios that I found particularly easy to understand:

"2/20 = 21/37

1/2 of particles 21 microns in diameter are not caught in the filter and show up downstream.

and only 1/20 of the particles 37 microns in diameter are not caught by the filter (because they're bigger and catch in the media easier).

In this case the manufacturer could choose to rate the filter as 95% efficient at 37 microns--because 1/20 of the particles getting through is the same as 95% of them being caught."

Top
#1812987 - 03/11/10 10:44 AM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: mechanicx]
Soobs Offline


Registered: 08/14/09
Posts: 240
Loc: Virginia, USA
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Maxflow rate doesn't tell you the restriction or psid, but I'd think there is some correlation between restriction, efficiency and flow rate.

Anyway the purpose of an oil filter is to, well filter. You seem to be arguing the filtering ability isn't important only construction. I think they are both necessary and important. Purolators are just as well constructed plus they have high efficiency.


I haven't stated anything that would suggest filtering ability isn't important. On the contrary it's very important. I'm just making some clarifications. Also, I'm not trying to suggest a Wix is better or worse than a PureOne. I use both products and buy whichever is on sale. I'm running a PL14610 on my Honda right now.

Max flow rate is determined by a lot more than just the ease of flow and it wouldn't be fair to say a Wix and P1 have the same [/i] flow capability[i]based off of that data. In any event, they both flow fine.

Top
#1813001 - 03/11/10 10:53 AM Re: Wix efficiency [Re: mechanicx]
Soobs Offline


Registered: 08/14/09
Posts: 240
Loc: Virginia, USA
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
20 microns and beta 15 at 31 microns. Beta 2 is 50% efficiency. This is also supported by the claim that it is a 21 micron nominal filter. Beta 2 at 15 microns would be more in line with average filters.If instead it was beta 2 at 6 microns that would be a very efficient filter, more efficient than even P1 and it would be a 6 micron nominal filter.


Just so we're all on the same page, (and I'm not sure how you got 93% at 31 microns) this is how I learned to calculate a beta ratio. You have to subtracet 1 from 2 & 20 and then divide that number by 2 & 20 to derive the correct percentage.

(Wix 51040) Beta Ratio 2/20=15/31:

2 / 20 = beta ratios of 50% and 95%. (1 divided 2 = 50% & 19 divide 20 = 95%) You then correspond these percentages with the micron size on the other side. Therefore it's 50% efficient at 15 microns and 95% efficient at 31 microns.

My latest Wix filter the (51356) has a beta ratio of 2/20=6/19. I like how Wix has specific data for each filter instead of blanketing every box with a efficiency rating derived from just one of their filter models. Again, this is not a crack on Purolator (they're fine filters) but I really doubt they all have identical multipass efficiencies.

More here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1266886.html?page=2

If the numbers after the B are subscripted, it means they represent the micron sizes for the respective beta ratios on the other side of the equation. If the numbers after the B are not subscripted, it means they represent the beta ratios for the respective micron sizes on the other side of the equation. To calculate the percentage of efficiency, subtract 1 from the beta ratio, then divide the result by the beta ratio. Example: 75-1=74; 74/75=98.67 percent. So the higher the beta ratio, the more efficient the filter is.



Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >