Wix xp efficiencey and capacity
- Thread starter Plawan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
The width of a hair on your arm is 40 microns.
Hair can be as small as 17 microns
It has finally come to literally splitting hairs on BITOG.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
The width of a hair on your arm is 40 microns.
Hair can be as small as 17 microns
It has finally come to literally splitting hairs on BITOG.
How about contact Wix and let us know if the 99% @ 35 microns is correct or not?
The reason everyone compares to the 20 microns is that is apples/apples comparison with the other synthetic filters on the market. 35 microns is just so they can say "99%". But it's not as bad as their 50% @ 20 microns makes it seem.
Compare to OEM spec like AC Delco which is 98% @ 25-30 microns.
The new Super Tech oil filters are 95% @ 29 microns.
The reason everyone compares to the 20 microns is that is apples/apples comparison with the other synthetic filters on the market. 35 microns is just so they can say "99%". But it's not as bad as their 50% @ 20 microns makes it seem.
Compare to OEM spec like AC Delco which is 98% @ 25-30 microns.
The new Super Tech oil filters are 95% @ 29 microns.
The 30-35 micron rating is a trick used often by cellulose only filters to claim high 90s efficiency, which even the most basic Korean filters can hit if you claim 35 micron particle size
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
The width of a hair on your arm is 40 microns.
actually between 40 and 80. So yeah, were talking barely visible to not visible to the human eye at 35 microns and below
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
The width of a hair on your arm is 40 microns.
actually between 40 and 80. So yeah, were talking barely visible to not visible to the human eye at 35 microns and below
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
Blackstone doesn't measure particles down in the micron range where you could tell the difference between oil filters. Go Google 'engine wear vs particle size' and read some of the papers written about engine wear, and you'll see that particles below 25 microns do the most wear damage.
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
Blackstone doesn't measure particles down in the micron range where you could tell the difference between oil filters. Go Google 'engine wear vs particle size' and read some of the papers written about engine wear, and you'll see that particles below 25 microns do the most wear damage.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
Blackstone doesn't measure particles down in the micron range where you could tell the difference between oil filters. Go Google 'engine wear vs particle size' and read some of the papers written about engine wear, and you'll see that particles below 25 microns do the most wear damage.
Your saying they only measure larger sizes for insouluables. How about wear? There would be enough data in their database to draw those conclusions
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
Blackstone doesn't measure particles down in the micron range where you could tell the difference between oil filters. Go Google 'engine wear vs particle size' and read some of the papers written about engine wear, and you'll see that particles below 25 microns do the most wear damage.
Your saying they only measure larger sizes for insouluables. How about wear? There would be enough data in their database to draw those conclusions
Can anyone link to where Blackstone writes about oil filters? Bottom line on filters is that mechanical strength and ability to last an OCI comes first, specs to meet your car's needs second (bypass valve for example), filtering ability comes third. Filtering ability will be worthless if the filter falls apart or the bypass valve never opens and the media tears. But, why not go for all three factors? Apparently there is no reason you can't have it all in filters, and a reasonable price if you run the filter for a longer OCI.
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
Blackstone doesn't measure particles down in the micron range where you could tell the difference between oil filters. Go Google 'engine wear vs particle size' and read some of the papers written about engine wear, and you'll see that particles below 25 microns do the most wear damage.
Your saying they only measure larger sizes for insouluables. How about wear? There would be enough data in their database to draw those conclusions
Wear is not measured by UOA.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
Blackstone doesn't measure particles down in the micron range where you could tell the difference between oil filters. Go Google 'engine wear vs particle size' and read some of the papers written about engine wear, and you'll see that particles below 25 microns do the most wear damage.
Your saying they only measure larger sizes for insouluables. How about wear? There would be enough data in their database to draw those conclusions
Wear is not measured by UOA.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
Blackstone doesn't measure particles down in the micron range where you could tell the difference between oil filters. Go Google 'engine wear vs particle size' and read some of the papers written about engine wear, and you'll see that particles below 25 microns do the most wear damage.
Your saying they only measure larger sizes for insouluables. How about wear? There would be enough data in their database to draw those conclusions
Wear is not measured by UOA.
Yeah right. Thats why nobody leaves a fill of oil in the sump after they discover via uoa that there is 40 ppm of lead or copper or 300ppm iron or elevated anything in it, right?
If premium filters were preventing a substantial bit more wear causing particles than the rest,a database as large as blackstones could certainly expose the trends.
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Also the whole micron rating thing may just be little more than marketing. Ive saw that blackstone labs(an entity that deals with and preforms used oil analysis daily) suggests that theres no real difference in preformance between filters.
Blackstone doesn't measure particles down in the micron range where you could tell the difference between oil filters. Go Google 'engine wear vs particle size' and read some of the papers written about engine wear, and you'll see that particles below 25 microns do the most wear damage.
Your saying they only measure larger sizes for insouluables. How about wear? There would be enough data in their database to draw those conclusions
Wear is not measured by UOA.
Yeah right. Thats why nobody leaves a fill of oil in the sump after they discover via uoa that there is 40 ppm of lead or copper or 300ppm iron or elevated anything in it, right?
If premium filters were preventing a substantial bit more wear causing particles than the rest,a database as large as blackstones could certainly expose the trends.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
So what is the answer from Wix?
Wix is one of the best.
I want an oil filter that balances filtration, capacity, and oil flow. And I think Wix does that, not sure about the others. I like the construction of Wix too.
My credentials:
I have 1997/208K miles using regular Wix oil filters and mostly conventional oil. I drive in heavy stop/go traffic. I change oil at 6K, and no sooner.
My fuel mileage is still like new, which I assume means I still have a tight engine without gaps caused by excessive wear.
The only thing I notice wearing out are my seals, since it consumes more oil than it used to.
I've driven other engines into the ground, and it is ALWAYS THE SEALS that kill the engine.
So what is the answer from Wix?
Wix is one of the best.
I want an oil filter that balances filtration, capacity, and oil flow. And I think Wix does that, not sure about the others. I like the construction of Wix too.
My credentials:
I have 1997/208K miles using regular Wix oil filters and mostly conventional oil. I drive in heavy stop/go traffic. I change oil at 6K, and no sooner.
My fuel mileage is still like new, which I assume means I still have a tight engine without gaps caused by excessive wear.
The only thing I notice wearing out are my seals, since it consumes more oil than it used to.
I've driven other engines into the ground, and it is ALWAYS THE SEALS that kill the engine.
Try some ATP 205 on the ones with bad seals, it's working wonders in my 335k Nissan
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,837
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Wear is not measured by UOA.
Yeah right. Thats why nobody leaves a fill of oil in the sump after they discover via uoa that there is 40 ppm of lead or copper or 300ppm iron or elevated anything in it, right?
UOAs cannot measure wear--that has been proven over and over. UOAs can reveal problems with systems before they become larger ones (such as coolant in the oil) and establish trending so that you can see when something dramatically changes. There have been engines that failed with stellar UOAs. Most, in fact nearly all, of the persons on this site (myself included at times) change oil based upon emotional responses and not data driven ones. I extended my OCIs on my old 2010 FX4 much further than the vast majority of the people on this site (10K on a conventional and 17K on a synthetic) and although I could have gone longer, I still changed it. Until there is a shift in results, even if the TBN in the UOA is zero, the oil can still be used longer. DNewton3 has preached this ad nausem on this site--search for some of his posts, read his normalcy article, and you will glean some of this.
Originally Posted By: Plawan
If premium filters were preventing a substantial bit more wear causing particles than the rest,a database as large as blackstones could certainly expose the trends.
Blackstone has repeatedly said that full flow filters have zero impact on the insolubles or wear metals in an UOA. If you do not believe what you read on this site, then Contact Blackstone and ask them.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Wear is not measured by UOA.
Yeah right. Thats why nobody leaves a fill of oil in the sump after they discover via uoa that there is 40 ppm of lead or copper or 300ppm iron or elevated anything in it, right?
UOAs cannot measure wear--that has been proven over and over. UOAs can reveal problems with systems before they become larger ones (such as coolant in the oil) and establish trending so that you can see when something dramatically changes. There have been engines that failed with stellar UOAs. Most, in fact nearly all, of the persons on this site (myself included at times) change oil based upon emotional responses and not data driven ones. I extended my OCIs on my old 2010 FX4 much further than the vast majority of the people on this site (10K on a conventional and 17K on a synthetic) and although I could have gone longer, I still changed it. Until there is a shift in results, even if the TBN in the UOA is zero, the oil can still be used longer. DNewton3 has preached this ad nausem on this site--search for some of his posts, read his normalcy article, and you will glean some of this.
Originally Posted By: Plawan
If premium filters were preventing a substantial bit more wear causing particles than the rest,a database as large as blackstones could certainly expose the trends.
Blackstone has repeatedly said that full flow filters have zero impact on the insolubles or wear metals in an UOA. If you do not believe what you read on this site, then Contact Blackstone and ask them.
Ok fine then that probably explains why blackstone says that there arent any meaningful differences from one filter brand type to the next. Apparently it dosent matter much which filter you use.
Yeah ive read dnewtons stuff already.
All i really need to say about the whole micron rating marketing hype is Toyota/Honda.
I guess as long as you enjoy your hobby its fine but it would probably be cheaper and easier to just change your oil sooner and not worry about uoas. But hey what ever trips your trigger pal.
Yeah ive read dnewtons stuff already.
All i really need to say about the whole micron rating marketing hype is Toyota/Honda.
I guess as long as you enjoy your hobby its fine but it would probably be cheaper and easier to just change your oil sooner and not worry about uoas. But hey what ever trips your trigger pal.
Originally Posted By: Plawan
blackstone says that there arent any meaningful differences from one filter brand type to the next.
They say the same thing about conventional oil vs synthetic, unless you have temperature extremes. The same between brands too. But still people don't believe them.
You might get 7000 miles, or maybe 5000 the next time, but then there's the cost of UOA that doesn't make the 1000 mile difference worth it.
I think the same old rules still apply for average driving:
Buy API/SAE rated oil for your vehicle, doesn't matter if conventional or synthetic (unless you have extreme temps).
Change oil/filter every 6,000 miles.
blackstone says that there arent any meaningful differences from one filter brand type to the next.
They say the same thing about conventional oil vs synthetic, unless you have temperature extremes. The same between brands too. But still people don't believe them.
You might get 7000 miles, or maybe 5000 the next time, but then there's the cost of UOA that doesn't make the 1000 mile difference worth it.
I think the same old rules still apply for average driving:
Buy API/SAE rated oil for your vehicle, doesn't matter if conventional or synthetic (unless you have extreme temps).
Change oil/filter every 6,000 miles.
Originally Posted By: snakyjake
Originally Posted By: Plawan
blackstone says that there arent any meaningful differences from one filter brand type to the next.
They say the same thing about conventional oil vs synthetic, unless you have temperature extremes. The same between brands too. But still people don't believe them.
You might get 7000 miles, or maybe 5000 the next time, but then there's the cost of UOA that doesn't make the 1000 mile difference worth it.
I think the same old rules still apply for average driving:
Buy API/SAE rated oil for your vehicle, doesn't matter if conventional or synthetic (unless you have extreme temps).
Change oil/filter every 6,000 miles.
i tottaly agree
Originally Posted By: Plawan
blackstone says that there arent any meaningful differences from one filter brand type to the next.
They say the same thing about conventional oil vs synthetic, unless you have temperature extremes. The same between brands too. But still people don't believe them.
You might get 7000 miles, or maybe 5000 the next time, but then there's the cost of UOA that doesn't make the 1000 mile difference worth it.
I think the same old rules still apply for average driving:
Buy API/SAE rated oil for your vehicle, doesn't matter if conventional or synthetic (unless you have extreme temps).
Change oil/filter every 6,000 miles.
i tottaly agree
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,837
Originally Posted By: Plawan
I guess as long as you enjoy your hobby its fine but it would probably be cheaper and easier to just change your oil sooner and not worry about uoas. But hey what ever trips your trigger pal.
Well, that or do enough UOAs to find the trend on ONE oil, then set an OCI, and stick with that oil. Almost no one on this site does that--typically they hopscotch between brands, never have a trend, and just change the oil base upon gut feel or OEM recommendations. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, the military has done something similar for decades. PS...not sure anyone here makes a hobby of doing UOAs, they typically have a purpose.
I guess as long as you enjoy your hobby its fine but it would probably be cheaper and easier to just change your oil sooner and not worry about uoas. But hey what ever trips your trigger pal.
Well, that or do enough UOAs to find the trend on ONE oil, then set an OCI, and stick with that oil. Almost no one on this site does that--typically they hopscotch between brands, never have a trend, and just change the oil base upon gut feel or OEM recommendations. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, the military has done something similar for decades. PS...not sure anyone here makes a hobby of doing UOAs, they typically have a purpose.
Originally Posted By: Plawan
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Wear is not measured by UOA.
Yeah right. Thats why nobody leaves a fill of oil in the sump after they discover via uoa that there is 40 ppm of lead or copper or 300ppm iron or elevated anything in it, right? If premium filters were preventing a substantial bit more wear causing particles than the rest,a database as large as blackstones could certainly expose the trends.
The link below is from Blackstone's website and describes how they do a standard UOA for $28. An oil sample is burned and the light given off by it and measured by a spectrograph determines the levels of elements in the oil based on 'standards' that they compare the a spectrograph reading to. The spectrograph test does not measure any actual particle sizes ... it just completely burns whatever is in the oil. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/spectrometry-the-marvel-of-the-lab.php
It does seem that if there were more wear particles in the oil (iron, aluminum, lead, etc), that the ppm levels of those elements would be somewhat increased with a poor efficiency oil filter. But keep in mind that even with relatively low efficiency oil filters, the particles may go round and round through the engine many more times before finally being caught by the oil filter. That is another factor in the wear scenario, which could increase engine wear over the OCI but not necessarily show up in a UOA or particle count if some of those particles are eventually caught by the filter. Any wear particles caught in the filter (even though they went through the engine many times over) will not show up in the ppm spectrograph test, but still could have caused some bearing wear or scoring before being caught. That's the main reason I personally like high efficiency filters - they will catch particles much sooner than lower efficiency filters and prevent them from making many trips through the enigne.
Blackstone's website also talks about a 'Particle Count Test': http://www.blackstone-labs.com/particle-count-test.php
The 'Particle Count Test' is a separate test costing $24. Has anyone here opted for that test? Would be interesting to see the data, and seems like the real test to determine if one oil filter is working better then the next. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/tests-price-list.php
Here's a description from Blackstone about 'Insolubles'. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/Newsletters/Aircraft/June-1-2012.php
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Wear is not measured by UOA.
Yeah right. Thats why nobody leaves a fill of oil in the sump after they discover via uoa that there is 40 ppm of lead or copper or 300ppm iron or elevated anything in it, right? If premium filters were preventing a substantial bit more wear causing particles than the rest,a database as large as blackstones could certainly expose the trends.
The link below is from Blackstone's website and describes how they do a standard UOA for $28. An oil sample is burned and the light given off by it and measured by a spectrograph determines the levels of elements in the oil based on 'standards' that they compare the a spectrograph reading to. The spectrograph test does not measure any actual particle sizes ... it just completely burns whatever is in the oil. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/spectrometry-the-marvel-of-the-lab.php
It does seem that if there were more wear particles in the oil (iron, aluminum, lead, etc), that the ppm levels of those elements would be somewhat increased with a poor efficiency oil filter. But keep in mind that even with relatively low efficiency oil filters, the particles may go round and round through the engine many more times before finally being caught by the oil filter. That is another factor in the wear scenario, which could increase engine wear over the OCI but not necessarily show up in a UOA or particle count if some of those particles are eventually caught by the filter. Any wear particles caught in the filter (even though they went through the engine many times over) will not show up in the ppm spectrograph test, but still could have caused some bearing wear or scoring before being caught. That's the main reason I personally like high efficiency filters - they will catch particles much sooner than lower efficiency filters and prevent them from making many trips through the enigne.
Blackstone's website also talks about a 'Particle Count Test': http://www.blackstone-labs.com/particle-count-test.php
The 'Particle Count Test' is a separate test costing $24. Has anyone here opted for that test? Would be interesting to see the data, and seems like the real test to determine if one oil filter is working better then the next. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/tests-price-list.php
Here's a description from Blackstone about 'Insolubles'. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/Newsletters/Aircraft/June-1-2012.php
- Status