Wix xp efficiencey and capacity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plawan

Plawan

Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
1,022
Location
Texas
I noticed some conflicting filtering ability claims in some threads so i thought i should contribute this.
Assuming orielys has access to the real specs (i would be surprised otherwise) it appears the xp is a better filter than its being credited for.

30n7qiu.jpg
 
I think it depends on the filter model, but there has been more than one person on BITOG contact WIX and hear it straight from them--50% @ 20um.
 
Originally Posted By: Plawan
it appears the xp is a better filter than its being credited for.

What are you looking at? The 99% claim? 20 microns is generally the magic number to look for. 99% efficiency @ 20 microns is excellent. 99% @ 35 is not.
 
While efficiency may not be too high, It's an excellent filter, as is the regular Wix. I would have no problem using them (and do). I'd rather have a quality filter with a lower efficiency, than a high efficiency filter that wasn't built well. I'd use any Wix with confidence.
 
Never said they know more than wix. I just think that wix will give its massive vendor the actual specs when they ask. Im not convinced that wix is all that concerned with providing the actual info to the general public. I just think its not a priority to them cuz few people care or even know to care.
 
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Why do you think O'Reilly knows more than Wix? That's dumb.

Here. http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=1863384

Numerous members have done the math on the beta and it comes out to about 50% @ 20 microns

I see now. Its saying 99% at 35 and yall are saying 50% at 20 so perhsps thats correct. I dunno. Either way i think its efficient enough because clearences are greater than 35 microns
 
Originally Posted By: Plawan
I think 35 is quite a bit different than 50.
Except 35 in the O'Reilly information is not referring to the 51516XP that is shown there. It is for the 51356XP (which is also B2=20) and the 57060XP (also B2=20). B2=20 is 50% efficient @ 20 microns.
 
Just to add a little bit of knowledge. Most of us have no idea what 20 microns are. 20 microns is about .0007 inches.
so, with a clearance of 10 to 20 ten thousands of an inch between the crankshaft bearing and the crankshaft, 30 microns could touch the surfaces of both. If you have Babbitt coated bearings there is a chance to have the particle embedded, aluminum not so much. Fortunately, most particles are softer than a crankshaft!
 
Originally Posted By: Plawan
I noticed some conflicting filtering ability claims in some threads so i thought i should contribute this.
Assuming orielys has access to the real specs (i would be surprised otherwise) it appears the xp is a better filter than its being credited for.


I'd say WIX themselves saying 50% @ 20 microns is about a 'real' as it gets. Personally, 50% @ 20 microns isn't that great really.

But keep in mind that 99% @ 35 microns could certainly translate out to 50% @ 20 microns depending on the exact performance characteristics (efficiency % vs particle size curve) of the media they use in the XP.

Personally, I like to use "xx% @ 20 microns" as the based for efficiency performance comparisons between filters.
 
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Never said they know more than wix. I just think that wix will give its massive vendor the actual specs when they ask. Im not convinced that wix is all that concerned with providing the actual info to the general public. I just think its not a priority to them cuz few people care or even know to care.


As posted above, on the WIX website they certainly do publish the beta ratio (ie, efficiency) so anyone can look at it.

I think O'Reilly uses the 99% @ 35 in their description to make it sound better than 50% @ 20%. Everyone wants to see "99%" instead of "50%". Not many know the difference between 20 microns and 35 microns when it comes to efficiency ratings.
 
Originally Posted By: Plawan
I see now. Its saying 99% at 35 and yall are saying 50% at 20 so perhsps thats correct. I dunno. Either way i think its efficient enough because clearences are greater than 35 microns.


If you read up on engine wear vs particle size, it says the most wear occurs from particles 25 microns and less.
 
Originally Posted By: redbone3
Just to add a little bit of knowledge. Most of us have no idea what 20 microns are. 20 microns is about .0007 inches.
so, with a clearance of 10 to 20 ten thousands of an inch between the crankshaft bearing and the crankshaft, 30 microns could touch the surfaces of both. If you have Babbitt coated bearings there is a chance to have the particle embedded, aluminum not so much. Fortunately, most particles are softer than a crankshaft!


Aren't crank and rod bearings more like 0.0015" ~ 0.0020" clearance.

http://www.mahle-aftermarket.com/media/local-media-north-america/pdfs/cl77-1-205r.pdf
 
The information is nothing new. Almost any manufacturer will reach a very high percentage in iso testing by using particles in the 30-35 micron range. Show me the 5 micron test and I'll be interested.

Also the 32 grams capacity is nothing new, as all manufacturers use the largest size filter for this quote. Fram uses the XG8A to get its 32 gram capacity while the smaller filters are much less because the engines have a lower contamination rate. I'll post that information again here too.


Fram Ultra holding capacity

XG7317-13 grams

XG3387A- 10 grams

XG3980- 13-15 grams

XG3600- 13-15 grams
 
Originally Posted By: TmanP
While efficiency may not be too high, It's an excellent filter, as is the regular Wix. I would have no problem using them (and do). I'd rather have a quality filter with a lower efficiency, than a high efficiency filter that wasn't built well. I'd use any Wix with confidence.


+1 (See sig)
 
Originally Posted By: TmanP
While efficiency may not be too high, It's an excellent filter, as is the regular Wix. I would have no problem using them (and do). I'd rather have a quality filter with a lower efficiency, than a high efficiency filter that wasn't built well. I'd use any Wix with confidence.


That's ridiculous when you can have the Fram Ultra which does everything right with no sacrifices.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: TmanP
While efficiency may not be too high, It's an excellent filter, as is the regular Wix. I would have no problem using them (and do). I'd rather have a quality filter with a lower efficiency, than a high efficiency filter that wasn't built well. I'd use any Wix with confidence.


That's ridiculous when you can have the Fram Ultra which does everything right with no sacrifices.


Exactly. The XP really isn't 'an excellent filter' if it doesn't filter that well. What difference does it make how it's built?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Oil Filter Media Area Database
Replies
17
Views
687
fantastic
M
Non-spec Wix for '14 Mazda SkyActive 2.5?
Replies
4
Views
422
BHopkins
S
Microgard Extended or M1 Extended Performance
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Glenda W.
B
2025 Camry filter size question
Replies
15
Views
866
B_D_1985
Y
Filter Opinions? RP vs Amsoil - Worth using larger filter?
Replies
5
Views
1K
yashi
Back
Top Bottom