Laws of Phisics -- Fram Ultra

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ And what doesn't make sense is for a full synthetic oil filter to have such a bad efficiency. Every other full synthetic on the market is in the high 90% range at 20 microns.

I mean if WIX wanted the XP to be "long use filter", they could have done that with regular old cellulose media with 50% @ 20 microns rating. Honda tells owner's right in the service schedule to use their OEM filter for over 10K miles over a 2x OCI use. The XP is a full synthetic that is only rated for 10K I believe, so for full synthetic media it doesn't make much sense. That's why I believe the experiment results done in Batman's cave showing evidence that there is internal leakage in the XP causing the poor efficiency. Batman's lab basically proved ISO 4548 test requirement 9.1.1 shown above.


stop obfuscating and trying to use a sales pitch to make your point. You have yet to present a single datapoint to prove batman is not wonderwoman, much less any point.

The more you say it doesn't make it true.

What you "believe" has no weight or force, only facts subjected to falsification carry any weight.

You seem very good at arguing logical fallacies against a not fully familiar audience to "sell" and "convince" people to accept your position- lets see how well you fare against someone who has superior knowledge and experience and has no qualms proving it because I left Zorro at home and can take anyone too any level with my own knowledge.

I welcome the challenge.



Do you have any access to any tests for passenger car filters in your career? Maybe you can get a filter tested with your connections in the field?


I love a tag team of miscreants. No I don't and never will but so far none of the alleged claims merit any real effort to refute because they are groundless on their face so that's zero sum

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Do you have any access to any tests for passenger car filters in your career? Maybe you can get a filter tested with your connections in the field?


Good point ... I can put ISO55000 in touch with an independent test lab that does ISO 4548 testing. Maybe that independent lab could recreate the secret lab's test results.


I dont need your labs I have my own facility and ISO labs under contract, just give me your test parameters and I will take it from there without all the area 57.5 secrecy for all the world to see and judge for themselves. I'm waiting....... tick...tock

 

[901Memphis]

Yes you are right... There's no merit in the fact that another lab tested the filter and it matched up perfectly with the posted beta ratios on Wix'S own website... Total shocker I suppose you think I make this stuff up for fun?

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ISO55000

^^^ I welcome the challenge.


Logical observations have a lot of weight in a discussion like this. The thing is, that observation aligns pretty well with the test results of possibly why the XP isn't a very efficient full synthetic oil filter.

Cough up some big coin and send a couple of XPs to the ISO lab to prove it's a false theory. Yes, it's just a hersay theory ... so why are you and OC so [censored] bent over all this. Are you guys WIX shills popping in. Well, I know OC isn't since he's been a member here for longer than me, but you just showed up. Did the Pres of WIX assign you this assignment? LoL

Nice try slick but you fail miserably on all points.

To quote Spock- even logic must give way to physics so your argument is unhinged there.
I don't need to do anything because your observations are at best the worst of scientific tripe and not worthy of further comment.

I also like your deflective argument but unfortunately I don't have a filter preference so it is equally invalid.

I like your commentary though because even in your ignorance you show your true colors and agenda- please continue

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
I love a tag team of miscreants. No I don't and never will but so far none of the alleged claims merit any real effort to refute because they are groundless on their face so that's zero sum


901Memphis has decent inputs, and bring up good points, like:

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
It wouldn't even need to go that far, it's almost like no one believes that Wixs own beta ratios are accurate. Just having an independent lab say yes the Wix XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns would be great.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
I dont need your labs I have my own facility and ISO labs under contract, just give me your test parameters and I will take it from there without all the area 57.5 secrecy for all the world to see and judge for themselves. I'm waiting....... tick...tock


Well, there you go. Have the certified ISO lab just do ISO 4548-12 for the efficiency test. Send 2 or 3 XPs in case they need them.

Have them test 1 or 2 (for repeatability) XPs right out of the box to verify the 50% @ 20 micron spec (per WIX) or not.

Then have them cut open a new filter and come up with a way to just test the media cartridge assy - no can, no bypass valve ... only the media. Repeat ISO 4548-12 and see if the efficiency shoots way up or not.

Bingo ... secret lab test procedure validation.

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
I dont need your labs I have my own facility and ISO labs under contract, just give me your test parameters and I will take it from there without all the area 57.5 secrecy for all the world to see and judge for themselves. I'm waiting....... tick...tock


Well, there you go. Have the certified ISO lab just do ISO 4548-12 for the efficiency test. Send 2 or 3 XPs in case they need them.

Have them test 1 or 2 (for repeatability) XPs right out of the box to verify the 50% @ 20 micron spec (per WIX) or not.

Then have them cut open a new filter and come up with a way to just test the media cartridge assy - no can, no bypass valve ... only the media. Repeat ISO 4548-12 and see if the efficiency shoots way up or not.

Bingo ... secret lab test procedure validation.


Nice try except for the history of this thread blows your feeble straw man out of the cornfield.

I never questioned the claimed rating- just the claim that there was a known defect. Go back and read those things called words and see for yourself.

Plus any lab could not duplicate the test without knowing all the parameters.

Seriously, are you really that ignorant or do you just think everyone else on this board is?

That was not even a good trick question even for you and I give you no credit whatsoever. That was insulting to anyone who can scroll a thread.

 

[Nate1979]

So if the efficiency is worse than the actual media what is the reason? I swear you guys are trying to defend junk media as the reason that these so called filters filter so poorly.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
I dont need your labs I have my own facility and ISO labs under contract, just give me your test parameters and I will take it from there without all the area 57.5 secrecy for all the world to see and judge for themselves. I'm waiting....... tick...tock


Well, there you go. Have the certified ISO lab just do ISO 4548-12 for the efficiency test. Send 2 or 3 XPs in case they need them.

Have them test 1 or 2 (for repeatability) XPs right out of the box to verify the 50% @ 20 micron spec (per WIX) or not.

Then have them cut open a new filter and come up with a way to just test the media cartridge assy - no can, no bypass valve ... only the media. Repeat ISO 4548-12 and see if the efficiency shoots way up or not.

Bingo ... secret lab test procedure validation.


Nice try except for the history of this thread blows your feeble straw man out of the cornfield.

I never questioned the claimed rating- just the claim that there was a known defect. Go back and read those things called words and see for yourself.

Plus any lab could not duplicate the test without knowing all the parameters.

Seriously, are you really that ignorant or do you just think everyone else on this board is?

That was not even a good trick question even for you and I give you no credit whatsoever. That was insulting to anyone who can scroll a thread.


Einstein - that simple test I described above WILL prove or disprove the "claim" that there was a known defect or not.

Any ISO lab can do exactly what I described above to validate the claim or not ... it's not rocket science, and you should know that if you really are "in the business".

Now call up your ISO lab buddies tomorrow and get the show on the road. Otherwise, I think this discussion has reached it's pinnacle and there really isn't much more to discuss that will add any value.

Bye for now ... I have more important things to do for the rest of the night. Please start a new thread when you get that data to debunk the "claim".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
So if the efficiency is worse than the actual media what is the reason? I swear you guys are trying to defend junk media as the reason that these so called filters filter so poorly.


Two words ... "WIX shill".

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
I dont need your labs I have my own facility and ISO labs under contract, just give me your test parameters and I will take it from there without all the area 57.5 secrecy for all the world to see and judge for themselves. I'm waiting....... tick...tock


Well, there you go. Have the certified ISO lab just do ISO 4548-12 for the efficiency test. Send 2 or 3 XPs in case they need them.

Have them test 1 or 2 (for repeatability) XPs right out of the box to verify the 50% @ 20 micron spec (per WIX) or not.

Then have them cut open a new filter and come up with a way to just test the media cartridge assy - no can, no bypass valve ... only the media. Repeat ISO 4548-12 and see if the efficiency shoots way up or not.

Bingo ... secret lab test procedure validation.


Nice try except for the history of this thread blows your feeble straw man out of the cornfield.

I never questioned the claimed rating- just the claim that there was a known defect. Go back and read those things called words and see for yourself.

Plus any lab could not duplicate the test without knowing all the parameters.

Seriously, are you really that ignorant or do you just think everyone else on this board is?

That was not even a good trick question even for you and I give you no credit whatsoever. That was insulting to anyone who can scroll a thread.


Einstein - that simple test I described above WILL prove or disprove the "claim" that there was a known defect or not.

Any ISO lab can do exactly what I described above to validate the claim or not ... it's not rocket science, and you should know that if you really are "in the business".

Now call up your ISO lab buddies tomorrow and get the show on the road. Otherwise, I think this discussion has reached it's pinnacle and there really isn't much more to discuss that will add any value.

Bye for now ... I have more important things to do for the rest of the night. Please start a new thread when you get that data to debunk the "claim".

spare me your tripe little man, your test will "prove" absolutely nothing relative to the question and I defy you to show otherwise.( not to mention ISO already accounted for that but since you cannot comprehend facts and don't have a copy, you wouldn't know)

You 'think" its reached the pinnacle only because its the only way you can find the door- its over there, go grab it, Run Forrest Run.

"more important things"- boy that tune sure changed when you were challenged but run along, your mother is calling.

You posted nothing to debunk but you know that- nice try

 

[ZeeOSix]

Do the test ... otherwise all your chest thumping is nothing more than harassment from this point on. It definably has reached the pinnacle, what else is there to prove or discuss here, really.

It's all been said, anyone with some smarts can see the logic that an internal leak problem can be the cause, and that a simple test as I described will prove if it's true or not. Don't make up more wimpy excuses.

You're out of straws ... so go show some proof, you have the assets since you have access to ISO labs that you claim can do the testing ... so get on with the business you claim you are in.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Mori? Is that you again? Welcome back...

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
....Who is this place that has ISO 4548-12 certified test equipment that you use as a source?....

As must be very clear to you now, as it is to me, you're not going to get a direct answer, only some nebulous response(s). What I conclude from that is, 'if' such a lab and testing result exist, the source is unreliable and/or it's not an independent test lab. Going hand in hand, likely both imo.

It does remind me though of the false information posted here and the oft singularly repeated claim that the XP construction used a combo valve also provided by an unnamed 'mystery' source. In that case though, the claim was refuted with plenty evidence proving it false and nothing to back up the bogus claim. For me at least, it has a very similar ring to because there has also been an unsubstantiated/undocumented claim regarding the Wix combo valve design.

In the one case though I understand it as a sort of indemnification. In the other, citing unnamed/nebulous source as fact is disappointing and caused me to lose a great deal of respect for present and likely future contributions. And for the anonomous providing source, if there is one at all, based on my observation of the examples I'd put them in weasel family.

As for the continuing XP efficiency discussion, for added information purposes O'Reilly Auto Parts quotes the XP's they sell as:

"Wix XP Oil Filter Laboratory Test Performance per ISO-4548-12: 32 grams dirt* - up to 100% more than Wix - 99% efficient at 35 microns** (Based on *51515XP - **51356XP, 57060XP)" http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail...keyword=57356xp

While not up to FU standards or even the PSL, seemingly better than the figure most repeated here (this board).

 

[ZeeOSix]

sayjac - the source of the information has credibility. Also, the blurb that O'Reilly Auto touts is nothing seen on the WIX website to validate it's accuracy. So I'm wondering where O'Reilly gets more accurate info than WIX themselves (?).

Although, if it was "99% @ 30 microns" that could correspond/convert down to around 50% @ 20 microns. I often find that filters that don't have a great efficiency at 20 micron will be shown to be a higher efficiency at a larger particle size since most consumers focus in on the "xx%" number and don't understand the "@ xx microns" rating.

Also notice in the O'Reilly website you linked that it says:
Media: Paper

This could be another case like the Motorcraft filter efficiency spec debacle, where they are actually better than the manufacturer even claims (ie, Amsoil filter efficiency comparison bar graph you are familiar with). If so, then WIX needs to get off their butts and change the efficiency info to be more accurate if they are better than currently advertised.

 

[steveh]

My guess would be that Motorking tells some people rumors about other filters, because he knows that some people will keep repeating them 100 times. All part of his marketing scam.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Well, all I can say is that if people still want to use a high class oil filter that is only 50% @ 20 microns then it's their prerogative.

My Prerogative

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: steveh
My guess would be that Motorking tells some people rumors about other filters, because he knows that some people will keep repeating them 100 times. All part of his marketing scam.
Without any proof of that, it simply remains "your guess". I on the other hand, do not think Jay is that type of person. While conveying with him about a FRAM Ultra for my 2014 Explorer, he told me there was a run of 100 that had the wrong thread type cut into the base plate and if I encountered one of them to return it to him for free replacement so FRAM could cross it off the list (they are actively seeking the remainder they have not found yet). FRAM seems to be a company sincerely interested in their customers and in this day and age, that means something (at least it does to me). What has Purolator done towards customer relations lately? If memory serves, even the people who have returned torn/defective filters to Purolator have been more or less "blown off" instructing them to "keep buying our products as improvements are continuously made" and feeding them reasons for the failure that fully contradict both their marketing materials and their warranty information. Seems pretty lame as a responsible company to me. To my knowledge, their have been no issues from other major filter companies that require any responses--do you know of any?

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ +1 2010_FX4

 

[53' Stude]

+1000 2010_FX4 for telling the truth of the "purolator tearing problem"