Recent Topics
10/1-11/16 5 qt's Napa Synthetic w/Silver OF$21.99
by tenderloin
Today at 02:45 AM
10/1-10/28 O'Reilly Sales Ad
by tenderloin
Today at 02:15 AM
Got the Hi-Power
by john_pifer
Today at 12:03 AM
Upgraded Mobil Jet Oil 387
by syfi
Yesterday at 11:40 PM
klotz super techniplate feed back
by mcn1970
Yesterday at 10:58 PM
ISIS appears 5 miles from Baghdad
by dave1251
Yesterday at 10:34 PM
ML-The Silent Danger of Abrupt Lubricant Failure
by wemay
Yesterday at 10:15 PM
Apple releases important update
by Mystic
Yesterday at 09:56 PM
Machinery Lubrication - 'GrpIII syn is mktng term'
by wemay
Yesterday at 09:41 PM
The Paint is Peelin'!
by Nick1994
Yesterday at 09:39 PM
Pennzoil Syn Blend Or Yellow Bottle 5w30 ?
by crazyoildude
Yesterday at 09:29 PM
fram ultra, weird oil pressure
by bowhuuntr
Yesterday at 09:27 PM
Newest Members
PAssatGuy, mcn1970, KCChemist, bbuice, Hemingway
51460 Registered Users
Who's Online
32 registered (05LGTLtd, Char Baby, Camprunner, Chuckinator, Boomer, Bookmaker, 6 invisible), 700 Guests and 139 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51460 Members
64 Forums
220062 Topics
3474903 Posts

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

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#2601350 - 04/16/12 08:56 PM NAPA 1773 oil filter
RamII59 Offline


Registered: 04/16/12
Posts: 9
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Hello folks! I've been visiting this forum for quite a while now and figured I might as well join and hopefully be able to offer some help to somebody myself!
I've been trying to find out if there is a filter of the Napa 1773 size that has a 20 micron or less media size with bypass pressure of at least 10 psi. Does such a critter exist?
Thanks for all the unknowing help you've given me by the way!
_________________________
2001 Dodge Ram 1500, 5.9L, with a few little engine mods, relocated engine oil and transmission oil filters.
Mobil 1 0W40, Napa 1773

Top
#2601769 - 04/17/12 11:07 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
Highline9 Offline


Registered: 08/24/11
Posts: 488
Loc: ca.
Did you check out the specs on the napa 1459? I thiink its larger in diameter than the 1773.
_________________________
2010 challenger R\T
2006 jeep commander
2003 hyundai elantra
1992 dodge w250 cummins

Top
#2601786 - 04/17/12 11:21 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
RamII59 Offline


Registered: 04/16/12
Posts: 9
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Thanks for the suggestion! Definitly a better micron rating (25) at first glance than the NAPA 1773 (32 micron). But then again, I can't find beta ratios for the 1773. I wonder if there is a synthetic version? Would like a higher bypass rating too.
_________________________
2001 Dodge Ram 1500, 5.9L, with a few little engine mods, relocated engine oil and transmission oil filters.
Mobil 1 0W40, Napa 1773

Top
#2601805 - 04/17/12 11:40 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5593
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
I would not put a lot of stock into the stats of the Wix filters nowdays. In no way am I suggesting they are bad filters or such. It's just that they are "homogenizing" the data as they work through the filters. I've seen a LARGE number of their filters now have beta of 2/20 = 6/20. A LOT of them now state this; as if they are all the same in performance (which I find hard to believe). Not all of them, but as time goes by, it encompasses more and more of them.

For example, my Wix 57202 filter for my Dmax engine used to be rated at 8/18; now it's 6/20. Consider the 51515, the 51516, and the 51348. Big, medium and small filters. All the same Beta (at 6/20). It used to be that these three filters had unique beta numbers; now they don't. How can that be? It used to be commonly accepted that larger filters slowed the flow, and they would be more efficient because the particles had more time to embed, blah blah blah. Now, you have no idea what filter is "better" because they are "whitewashing" the data.

Here are some extreme examples:
Wix 51734 for the old 7.3L PSD rated at 6/20 (huge filter at 8" x 4")
Wix 51358 for motorcycles, atv's etc rated at 6/20 (tiny filter at 2.7" x 2.7")
Wix 51389 and 51324 which are the FF and BP filters for the old diesel Escorts ... 6/20 ......
As they move through their product line, they are "updating" the filter data on their website. More and more examples every day. "2/20 = 6/20".


Yes - much of the physical data is still available and real. Size, thread pitch, BP and burst pressures, etc are all still valid. But the efficiency is now moot IMO.

Wix was one of the few companies that used to provide meaningful data for efficiency. I think they've seen the folly of their actions. Probably too many people questioning their specs, performance, etc. No one else (Purolator, Fram, Bosch, M1, etc) publishes their data; why should Wix? They might put up "%" figures, but nothing that speaks to real beta performance.

It's either that, or they are completely re-engineering their entire product catalog, and tuning each and every filter to provide the exact same performance by manipulating the pleat media density and size. Yeah - I don't buy that for a second ...

I have no "proof" of my comments past what is clearly visible on their site. It is my supposition as to why they've commonized all the beta data. But I'd ask for any other sane explanation; feel free to put if forth.

Just know that the data you see for beta is likely commonized, and the "nominal" ratings are even more worthless.


Edited by dnewton3 (04/17/12 11:55 AM)
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#2601865 - 04/17/12 12:52 PM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: dnewton3]
ZeeOSix Offline


Registered: 07/22/10
Posts: 7264
Loc: PNW
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
No one else (Purolator, Fram, Bosch, M1, etc) publishes their data; why should Wix? They might put up "%" figures, but nothing that speaks to real beta performance.


At least others like Purolator and FRAM do state an efficiency rating with a micron specification. But they are based on one or two of their larger sized filters. I'm sure they pick these larger filters for their ISO efficiency test standard because they give better beta results.
_________________________
A filter's brand name doesn't matter ... what's inside does.

Top
#2602471 - 04/18/12 04:30 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5593
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Yes, that's true.

But knowing only one filter efficiency by % at only one size is (nearly) lame. It's hard to compare/contrast filter brands, or even filters within a brand, when so little is known. And as you correctly mention, they are going to "cherry pick" the better performers for the front of the box advertising; probably akin to something like "Up to 99.8% efficient at removing dirt ..." as if "UP to" is a scientific valuation. Further if Purolator were to rate a filter at 99.7% at 23um and Fram were to rate a similar filter at 99.8% at 25um, that does not speak to the same performance at the same particulate size; it's nearly impossible to tell which is "better" because the data is not rated at the same physical size.

My point was that Wix was the only one that listed beta data, and now that's pretty much worthless because they whitewash the numbers now.

Although, I would confess and profess that most all filters are "good enough" for normal OCI factors anyway; rust/rot, collisions, boredom/sell/trade, etc. are more likely to take a vehicle out of service. Most vehicles will leave a person's possession for factors other than wearing out the engine ....



Edited by dnewton3 (04/18/12 04:38 AM)
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#2602803 - 04/18/12 01:03 PM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: dnewton3]
ZeeOSix Offline


Registered: 07/22/10
Posts: 7264
Loc: PNW
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Further if Purolator were to rate a filter at 99.7% at 23um and Fram were to rate a similar filter at 99.8% at 25um, that does not speak to the same performance at the same particulate size; it's nearly impossible to tell which is "better" because the data is not rated at the same physical size.


Looking at those two examples, I'd say they are in the hair splitting realm.

Yes, it's too bad the oil filter industry doesn't adopt a standard rating system that they all would use (and show on the box) so someone could quickly compare apples to apples. Something like listing the particle size at beta 2, 20 and 100 (ie, 50%, 95% and 99% efficiency) based on the ISO 4548-12 test standard.

Of course, to do this for every individual filter would cost mega bucks for most filter makers. I found a lab that did ISO 4548-12 testing, and to get test results for one filter is was around $15K.

At lease the filter makers that do give some kind of beta number at a specific micron size (even if it is white washed data to some degree) is better than the ones that don't give any efficiency numbers at all, or just give an efficiency % without listing at what particle size.
_________________________
A filter's brand name doesn't matter ... what's inside does.

Top
#2603047 - 04/18/12 05:24 PM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
RamII59 Offline


Registered: 04/16/12
Posts: 9
Loc: Ontario, Canada
I checked out the wix site, and you're right, dnewton3, about the generalization of beta ratings. I can't see that being possible, even with filter media coming from the same swath. I like your rating idea Zee0Six, but I don't think that will ever happen, unfortunately.
So, gentlemen, would there be a filter of 1773 size and thread with equivalent beta rating? I would like to use that filter for my transmission. Any idea on specs for a Motorcraft FL299?
_________________________
2001 Dodge Ram 1500, 5.9L, with a few little engine mods, relocated engine oil and transmission oil filters.
Mobil 1 0W40, Napa 1773

Top
#2603493 - 04/19/12 04:32 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5593
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
You can do an "attribute search" over at the Donaldson site and come up with many choices. The attribute search is a nice way to find filters; allows you to pick thread pitch, etc, and then it will spit out filters meeting those criteria. You then take those and xref them into whatever brand you want.


Also, it's not like beta 6/20 is a bad rating for efficiency; it's just been white-washed into (nearly) every filter they are listing. I've found a few "hold-outs" on the Wix site that have not been changed over yet, but I suspect it's forthcoming, unless those fitlers are WAY worse than that. But if Wix is going to commonize the data, then why list it?


Edited by dnewton3 (04/19/12 04:35 AM)
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#2603527 - 04/19/12 06:26 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: dnewton3]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11459
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Also, it's not like beta 6/20 is a bad rating for efficiency; it's just been white-washed into (nearly) every filter they are listing. I've found a few "hold-outs" on the Wix site that have not been changed over yet, but I suspect it's forthcoming, unless those fitlers are WAY worse than that. But if Wix is going to commonize the data, then why list it?


I just noticed that, too. I happened to notice they changed the recommended filter for my G from the 51365 to the 51358 (a hair larger; they told me by email it was closer to the OEM filter). The 51365 has the 2/20=6/20 ratio listed, where the 51358 and oversize 51356 show 2/20=6/20.

It is kind of silly. We darn well know that not every filter in their catalog filters precisely the same. The same goes for Motorcraft or any other family of filters with a large catalog. And I, too, don't care about 99% efficiency at x microns for application Y that I don't use.

Either list the right specs or list a minimum. Don't cherry pick the maximum for me to look at.


Edited by dnewton3 (04/19/12 11:34 AM)
Edit Reason: edited to correct typo
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#2603745 - 04/19/12 11:33 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5593
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Agreed.

Those same two filters (51358 vs 53165) fit on my Goldwing. I picked the 53165 (even though it was samller) because its beta was "better". Now, what am I left to assume? Did they change the 53165 so that it's precisely, exactly the same in efficiency perfomrance as the 53158? I doubt it.

The 53165 is a bit easier for me, because it's a tiny bit shorter, and yet gave better beta (or it did back in the day, so to speak).

In real world applications, there were some advantages. I convinced a friend to use the 51516 vs the OEM 51348 on his 4.0L Tacoma because the 51516 was the same diameter, could easily accommodate the longer length, and gave a better beta (although I don't recall what those figures were). Now, how could I prove that "bigger is better"? The betas are identical.

Not that the "bigger is better' always held true, even with the older correct beta data. I did find some examples that our dear friend Gary Allan and I discussed. There was a Wix filter that was shorter than a 51515, same diameter and gasket, but had better efficiency (it was the 51311 IIRC). I came across it for my Kubota. Now, yet again, I have no proof of that because the site data has been white-washed. But he and I were shocked to find a "smaller" filter had much better beta performance.

Overall, their site is not nearly as useful as it once was.

But, like I said previously, it's not like the filters are really the limiting factor of an OCI or of engine life cycle for that matter. It's just that we AR Bitoger's cannot cherry pick out the stuff like we used to.



Now that I think of it, to the OP RamII59, you might look at the 51311 if you want a higher delta P for your bypass pressure. That is a really short version of the filter you mentioned (51773). However, I would caution that often bypass pressures should not be messed with, and also that you take note that a shorter filter will almost assuredly blind off quicker due to much less media (51311 vs 51773) and therefore make for a much more frequent filter change interval.

In general, I don't advise venturing off the beaten path for filters unless you do some really good research first. And with the beta data being homogenized now at Wix, it's really hard to tell if "better" is better or not ...



Edited by dnewton3 (04/20/12 04:25 AM)
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#2604207 - 04/19/12 07:22 PM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11459
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
I may send them an email or something. It is kind of strange, actually, it's annoying. If they want to say it's a minimum, they should say so. If they don't want to publish a spec, don't publish a spec. It's not difficult. wink
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#2604531 - 04/20/12 04:43 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5593
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
I've not had good luck with Wix when it comes to email results.

Example: the Wix fuel filters for my Dmax.

Wait a minute, darn it! They have now recently also changed the fuel filter data too! Holy Cowabunga, Batman! KaPowwwww ....

Well - it USED to be that the Wix 33960 and 33960XE filters had different "nominal" filter ratings.
This is previous data; it USED to be the following:
33960 = 4um nominal
33960XE = 7um nominal

So, I sent and email asking why the "premium" filter had a worse rating. The canned email I got back was less than impressive. The girl (cannot recall her name now) gave a really poor answer about it being "better". I asked "better how". She said the media was more efficient; that XE meant extra-efficient. I asked "How is that "better" when the nominal ratings are counter-indicative of the statement?" She didn't answer. I then emailed again and asked if she could give me the beta data. No answer again except that the "XE" media was "better". Again - I asked "please define what "better" means!" No answer. I was beginning to see a pattern (I'm a slow learner at times). I told her that I understood beta and ISO rating systems, and I'd like the REAL data. No answer. That's where the trail went cold, as they say ...

Now, as of 4-19-12 (because I just happened to check for this conversation this morning) I see that the ratings have been adjusted:
33960 is now at 7um nominal and the 33960XE is still at 7um nominal (with no micron size called out)
Am I to believe that they purposely downgraded their "normal" filter so that it didn't outperform the "premium" filter? Or, should I conclude that the "normal" filter was over-rated to begin with? And, at the very least, why is their "premium" XE filter rated at the same nominal at the "normal" filter? Just what would be my motivation to buy a premium product with the same rating as the normal product? You want my money? You want me to spend more for "better"? Then SHOW ME how "better" is defined. If the XE is "better", either show me that the efficiency is finer, or show me that the XE lasts some factor "longer" in lifecycle. Give me SOME reason to believe that my hard-earned money is going to be spent wisely. Interestingly, this fuel filter topic is huge in the Dmax world because it only relys on just one filter for the whole fuel system. I've often defended Wix againt the "must use the OEM filter" folks, showing how the nominal rating of the 33960 at 4um was as good as the Racor at 4um. Now, that point of proof is gone ... And I suspect people will jump on that with aplomb! As we all know, even nominal ratings are not very good at judging filter data. It won't stop me from using the Wix, but it certainly will lose sales to the "non-believers".

Conceptually, this is no different than the synthetic/dino debate. I want either "better" (less wear) or "longer" (more service life) out of my investment. If you cannot show me that, I'm not buying into the mythology and rhetoric. Wix has now imersed themselves completely into rhetoric, as far as I'm concerned.

They (Wix) are WHITEWAHSING all their filter data; not just the oil filters.


And here is my suspicion as to why ...
Hype sells product. Period. Wild claims statstically make more sales then does solid facts. Let's fact it; BITOGers are the minority by far, and we all know it. Wix has two choices; they can provide good hard data for the minority to revel in, or they can white-wash the data and appeal to the masses. Rhetoric and mythology are strong and it's very difficult to overcome these sales tools when there is no "factual basis" to deny them with. Remove facts, and it's a "he said/she said" argument. Provide facts and it's no longer an argument but a debate which can be clearly defined. Bottom line? The fiscal bottom line is likely the root driver here. People like use do not represent the majority of sales, and they are targeting their data to the masses. I cannot say that it's a bad choice, overall, for them. But it sucks for us.

And so goes the Wix progression into mediocrity.


Edited by dnewton3 (04/20/12 04:58 AM)
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#2604561 - 04/20/12 05:51 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: dnewton3]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11459
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And here is my suspicion as to why ...
Hype sells product. Period. Wild claims statstically make more sales then does solid facts. Let's fact it; BITOGers are the minority by far, and we all know it. Wix has two choices; they can provide good hard data for the minority to revel in, or they can white-wash the data and appeal to the masses.


Which is why they should, perhaps, publish some interesting nominal ratings, and leave the beta numbers accurate. The average person has no idea how to decode the beta ratios. So, they could leave them "correct" and it wouldn't matter one wit. I certainly agree that the average consumer loves the sparkly 99%+ ratings that filter manufacturers tend to cherry pick and publicise.

This time, I'm cutting and pasting the beta ratios so there's no ambiguity or typos. wink

51365 2/20=2/20
51356 2/20=6/20
51358 2/20=6/20
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#2604668 - 04/20/12 09:46 AM Re: NAPA 1773 oil filter [Re: RamII59]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5593
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
It occured to me that one of our former sponsors (fleetfilter) posts up data from Wix. (They are a Napa bulk sales place in TX and where I order my filters from).

I went and looked, and they still have the OLD (real) beta data. Alough some of it must have typo errors, because the 51365 shows a beta of 15/22 while the 51358 shows a beta of 13/52. I'd like to think that ANY decent filter is 95% capable at 52 microns! As I recall, I believe that 51358 was 13/25 (not 52) on the Wix site. Also, looking at the pictures I also remember that the 51358 has a nitrile ADBV while the 51365 has the silicone ABDV; yet another reason I chose the 51365 over the 51358.

Also, if you look up the fuel filter 33960 you can see the "normal" 4um and "XE" 7um versions as previously stated from my thread above. As opposed to the current Wix listings both at 7um.

Seems to me that the fleetfilter data was probably manually typed into their site fields from the (former) Wix data fields, and they haven't noticed the Wix changes on the Wix site yet.


Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! ( ... he says in a hushed whisper ... ) Don't tell them or it will be "whitewashed" too.

Check it out whilst you can.


Edited by dnewton3 (04/20/12 09:52 AM)
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >