Wix XP efficiency

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Frankly, ISO55000 was a troll trying to discount the validity of ISO 4548-12 ... he failed.

Reading the threads with you and ISO55000 certainly revealed that he had a very deep dislike for you, but he knew what he was talking about.

Having read ISO 4548-12, I can see why he was saying what he did. An early example in one of the threads is where he refuted the idea being put forward via the batcave that there was unintended bypassing going on. The standard specifically calls for that to be checked before running the test.


He tried to make people think he know what he was talking about, and was trying to say ISO 4548-12 wasn't worth anything. You notice he's not here anymore unless he's in hiding and keeping mellow. I don't know why he was so [censored] off, I mean if the batcave findings were accurate then the media is better than what's claimed, and there would have been a reason why the test was coming in low. And yes, Section 9.1.1 does say to test for leakage around the filter element, but it doesn't say exactly how, which leaves it open to being done either right or wrong. A test procedure is only as good as the people interpreting and running it. That's why they need to be written very clearly to curb the chances of misinterpretation.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
As to his wanting to compare 4548-12 to 16889, I haven't read 16889 but have found that the test dust is identical and that the bench testing equipment sold for the testing can test for both standards. Hydraulic oil is also used in both tests. So it looks like he knew what he was talking about when he said he was going to compare the two. Yes 16889 is for very high efficiency purposes and 4548-12 is for less efficient filters, but they use the same testing equipment, the same dust and aim to report on the same performance metrics.


Except the results of the 'same performance metrics' are in a different league. ISO 4548-12 is not meant for testing oil filters above beta 75, but they do say you can extrapolate beyond beta 75 but only for higher efficiency filters. ISO 16889 is specifically meant to test oil filters above beta 75 (the summary statements of each ISO test lay that out as posted before). ISO 16889 stipulates/recommends that the following beta ratios be measured and reported (snit it below). Notice they go all the way upto beta 1000 ... so for goodtimes I'd have to say those particle counters can do better than some think.

I've been in the testing world forever, and when I use an industry test standard (ISO, MIL-SPEC, etc) it has to be followed correctly or QA dudes looking over the test conductor's back will not buy off the test. That's how it should work. If it works that way in the oil filter industry, well who knows for sure. If it happens like that at someplace like the SwRI, well they could tell you and I'd think they have their own in-house QA system in order to give confidence to their test results.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
I also don't think he was trying to discredit the test. Simply that to interpret results, you need to better understand the test, as well as ask how realistic is the test compared to real world conditions. That is explored more here:

https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/sites/default/files/MB10046.pdf


IMO, he was trying his hardest to discredit ISO 4548-12 in some way to defend the WIX XP's low efficiency test numbers. Looking back at those threads, it seems he was arguing against himself because if the low numbers was due to an internal leak then the media is actually better than it's claimed to be.

Nobody, including myself, has argued that ISO 4548-12 is a test to try and realistically compare real world conditions. I have however, and always will say that it's the only real current test standard that is used to compare oil filter efficiency in a decent manner - that's the whole purpose of a test standard. If you have read the stuff I've posted about the SAE Bus Study and showed the graph from the report, it can be seen that the filters that tested the most efficient in the lab bench test also showed to give the cleanest particle count data in the oil. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that if Filter A tests more efficient than Filter B using ISO 4548-12 that Filter A is also going to keep the engine oil cleaner in real world use. Pretty hard to refute a correlation like that.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Looking for a definition of "nominal micron rating" brings up this succinct and useful explanation from Baldwin:

The term “nominal” micron rating typically means that the filter is capable of removing 50% of a specific size particle, however, some companies’ “nominal” micron ratings may range anywhere from 1 to 98.6% efficient at removing a specific particle size. The term “absolute” micron rating means that the filter is capable of removing at least 98.7% of a specific size particle. This rating is far more accurate.

http://www.baldwinfilter.com/ProductHighlights122010.html


The part in red pretty much makes stating a filter's "nominal efficiency" completely useless because it's a very lose definition. If that's what they want it to mean, then why not just say it's "50% at xx microns" instead.

Just like some people get all twisted up with WIX beta ratio data, or why M+H references ISO 16889 with some cryptic note for filters that are not efficient enough to technically warrant the use of ISO 16889. WIX has 'done it's own thing' with their beta ratio format that doesn't follow any industry standard.

 

[zrxkawboy]

I'm 42 years old. If I said I could out run 50% of the men in my town = 20 years old, that might be a tall order. If I said I could out run 50% of men equal to or greater than 20, that might be possible. (As long as you don't know I'm a fat guy

) Sure there would be some men who are 20, but also some 30, 35, 44, 55, 65, 78, 84, etc. Bottom line, those are two very different claims.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
I'm 42 years old. If I said I could out run 50% of the men in my town = 20 years old, that might be a tall order. If I said I could out run 50% of men equal to or greater than 20, that might be possible. (As long as you don't know I'm a fat guy

) Sure there would be some men who are 20, but also some 30, 35, 44, 55, 65, 78, 84, etc. Bottom line, those are two very different claims.


Does that include all the guys who where "20 years and 1 microsecond" old when the starting gun went off? How about "20 years old and 1 microsecond old"? Get it yet?

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I've been in the testing world forever, and when I use an industry test standard (ISO, MIL-SPEC, etc) it has to be followed correctly or QA dudes looking over the test conductor's back will not buy off the test. That's how it should work. If it works that way in the oil filter industry, well who knows for sure. If it happens like that at someplace like the SwRI, well they could tell you and I'd think they have their own in-house QA system in order to give confidence to their test results.


I don't doubt that people are running tests properly. The point is that standards have leeway built in that can be played with and then marketing can play with the communication. Which is why the ideal thing is to actually get the ISO 4548-12 report. Indeed, that output is what big buyers would receive from test facilities or manufacturers with their own facilities so they can truly compare and see how each test was run. End users are communicated to entirely differently and the amount of detective work that goes on amongst enthusiasts is insane.

If you read the posts by SonofJoe, he spent his career formulating oils to different specifications and has stories of "tricks" used to pass those specifications.

In the case of oil filters, I find it really interesting that the efficiency numbers across individual Wix filters is all over the place. On that basis, it would be strange other manufacturers didn't have similar variations despite what they state from a marketing point of view.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
IMO, he was trying his hardest to discredit ISO 4548-12 in some way to defend the WIX XP's low efficiency test numbers. Looking back at those threads, it seems he was arguing against himself because if the low numbers was due to an internal leak then the media is actually better than it's claimed to be.

I didn't interpret he was defending Wix. I think what he said was in keeping with somebody who knows the subject of filter testing very well and was speaking to people (not picking on you here) that were several levels below his knowledge. Essentially, most people here haven't even read the ISO paper but there are many statements and speculations being made about filters rather than questions and highly qualified answers.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Nobody, including myself, has argued that ISO 4548-12 is a test to try and realistically compare real world conditions. I have however, and always will say that it's the only real current test standard that is used to compare oil filter efficiency in a decent manner - that's the whole purpose of a test standard. If you have read the stuff I've posted about the SAE Bus Study and showed the graph from the report, it can be seen that the filters that tested the most efficient in the lab bench test also showed to give the cleanest particle count data in the oil. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that if Filter A tests more efficient than Filter B using ISO 4548-12 that Filter A is also going to keep the engine oil cleaner in real world use. Pretty hard to refute a correlation like that.


Weren't the vehicles in the bus study also fitted with bypass filters?

 

[zrxkawboy]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Does that include all the guys who where "20 years and 1 microsecond" old when the starting gun went off? How about "20 years old and 1 microsecond old"? Get it yet?

Of course. It also includes all the guys in the nursing home. That's the point. It's a heckuva lot easier to beat half the guys in the age group "20 and greater" than the group "20 years old". Get it yet?

 

[zrxkawboy]

All I know is, from elementary school through college, if I'd have tried to convince any math teacher that "20" and ">20" were the same thing, they'd have corrected me in a big hurry...as they should. You must be using that new common core math.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
+1 Garak. I'll show an "Oil Filter Efficiency vs Particle Size" curve to help show this graphically. This is a typical example graph given in ISO 4548-12 to show the filter tester that a graph like this will be generated by the collected test data.

And, that's the thing. If we don't accept Fram's data, then we had better not accept anyone else's. M+H has their weird system as you guys have been discussing, not to mention that efficiency relies on intact media. Wix uses a strange beta ratio method, not to mention they whitewashed their data. Motorcraft seems to use a minimum specification. So, if Fram's data is so suspect, then we had better look at everyone else much more closely. And, this is coming from a guy that's never used a Fram oil filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Does that include all the guys who where "20 years and 1 microsecond" old when the starting gun went off? How about "20 years old and 1 microsecond old"? Get it yet?

Of course. It also includes all the guys in the nursing home. That's the point. It's a heckuva lot easier to beat half the guys in the age group "20 and greater" than the group "20 years old". Get it yet?


Well, obviously you didn't get my example, no wonder you don't understand the logic of numerical limits. Are you a physicist?

To lighten up the discussion, here's a joke a Professor told in class one day to stress a point like this:

An engineer and a physicist wanted to date the same pretty woman. She was standing across the room from them, and told each to walk towards her, but that they could only move 1/2 the distance each time they moved towards her. She said "The first guy who reaches me will get the date". The physicists throws up his hands and yells out "I give up, because I'll never get to you". The engineer said "I can get there close enough for all practical purposes".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
All I know is, from elementary school through college, if I'd have tried to convince any math teacher that "20" and ">20" were the same thing, they'd have corrected me in a big hurry...as they should. You must be using that new common core math.

Sound like they never covered numerical limits in their math curriculum ... or you were either sick that day mistakenly went in to a physicist classroom.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Got your bags packed? ...

Man, you are so wrong!

 

[CajunLariat]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Got your bags packed? ...

Man, you are so wrong!

Dad your pushing your luck. ZO6 was right to ask you if you packed your bags. These guys are in a major filter discussion and your being silly. Did you tell them that you bought a wixXP oil filter? He was upset because it dont have the bypass valve near the threads. He sent rock auto a e-mail to return it.

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Does that include all the guys who where "20 years and 1 microsecond" old when the starting gun went off? How about "20 years old and 1 microsecond old"? Get it yet?

Of course. It also includes all the guys in the nursing home. That's the point. It's a heckuva lot easier to beat half the guys in the age group "20 and greater" than the group "20 years old". Get it yet?


Well, obviously you didn't get my example, no wonder you don't understand the logic of numerical limits. Are you a physicist?

To lighten up the discussion, here's a joke a Professor told in class one day to stress a point like this:

An engineer and a physicist wanted to date the same pretty woman. She was standing across the room from them, and told each to walk towards her, but that they could only move 1/2 the distance each time they moved towards her. She said "The first guy who reaches me will get the date". The physicists throws up his hands and yells out "I give up, because I'll never get to you". The engineer said "I can get there close enough for all practical purposes".

A filter that has an efficiency of 99% for all particles >20 microns (which is what FRAM's efficiency means) means that it filters 99% of particles that are 20.01 microns, 20.001 microns, 20.0001 microns, and so on. There's not much difference between 20.0000000001 and 20. To elaborate further, it means that the filter filters 99% of all particles that are 20.01 microns in size, 99% of those that are 20.001 microns, etc., 99% of all particles 21 microns in size, 99% of those that are 22 microns, etc.

Now to explain this by zrxkawboy's example, this efficiency would translate in the following manner:
He would have to outrun 99% of all people 20.001 years old, 99% of all people 20.00001 years old, 99% of all people 20.5 years old, 99% of all people 21 years old, 99% of all people 22 years old, etc.

I think we can all see this essentially shows that the efficiency is for 20 micron particles as well (there's not much difference between 20.0000000001 microns and 20 microns).

ZeeOSix, I know you understand all this already, so this post is not intended for you or anyone else who already knows this.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
In the case of oil filters, I find it really interesting that the efficiency numbers across individual Wix filters is all over the place. On that basis, it would be strange other manufacturers didn't have similar variations despite what they state from a marketing point of view.


At one time WIX seemed to list a beta ratio for every filter, and some were slightly different than others. Maybe way back they use to test almost every model to get a beta number, or they did it somehow through analysis based on testing of certain sized filters. Then as dnewton3 and others have pointed out, WIX started white washing and showing all the regular WIX filters to be 95% @ 20 microns.

Today you'll typically see an efficiency spec referenced to a few specific models. Fram does it in their statements, and I see WIX did it in the info I posted about the XP from Amazon. Purolator always use to just reference their largest spin-on filter, probably because a larger filter seems to give a better efficiency number. IMO, there's nothing wrong with testing 3 different sized filters (small, medium and large sized) and basing the efficiency for the that model line on the test results of those 3 representative filters.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Weren't the vehicles in the bus study also fitted with bypass filters?


They did also do some with bypass filters, but the table and graphs I've showed along the way were for the spin-on filters used.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Tony10s
I think we can all see this essentially shows that the efficiency is for 20 micron particles as well (there's not much difference between 20.0000000001 microns and 20 microns).


I see you're not a "physicists" Tony.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
At one time WIX seemed to list a beta ratio for every filter, and some were slightly different than others. Maybe way back they use to test almost every model to get a beta number, or they did it somehow through analysis based on testing of certain sized filters. Then as dnewton3 and others have pointed out, WIX started white washing and showing all the regular WIX filters to be 95% @ 20 microns.


I looked at about 5 today and they all seemed to be different.

 

[zrxkawboy]

Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Now to explain this by zrxkawboy's example, this efficiency would translate in the following manner:
He would have to outrun 99% of all people 20.001 years old, 99% of all people 20.00001 years old, 99% of all people 20.5 years old, 99% of all people 21 years old, 99% of all people 22 years old, etc.


I see that you and Zee were talking about filters when the rest of us were learning reading comprehension, because that's not what I said at all.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
All I know is, from elementary school through college, if I'd have tried to convince any math teacher that "20" and ">20" were the same thing, they'd have corrected me in a big hurry...as they should. You must be using that new common core math.


You're correct, >20 is not 20. The problem comes when there doesn't exist a 20 micron particle in the universe. @20 is actually wrong.

 

[zrxkawboy]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

You're correct, >20 is not 20. The problem comes when there doesn't exist a 20 micron particle in the universe. @20 is actually wrong.


Using that thinking, we can never say that an engine makes 300HP, a man is 5'10", I bought a quart of oil, etc. Those measurements will always be off by some minute amount. Still, I don't think we're "actually wrong" to say any of those things. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Now to explain this by zrxkawboy's example, this efficiency would translate in the following manner:
He would have to outrun 99% of all people 20.001 years old, 99% of all people 20.00001 years old, 99% of all people 20.5 years old, 99% of all people 21 years old, 99% of all people 22 years old, etc.

I see that you and Zee were talking about filters when the rest of us were learning reading comprehension, because that's not what I said at all.

Neither my reading comprehension nor anyone else's is in question here. I wasn't saying that's what you said. I was saying that's what an efficiency of 99% for all particles > 20 microns means in terms of the 'outrunning people' example. In terms of particles, it means the media is 99% efficient at each particle size that is greater than 20 microns; that is, it is 99% efficient @ 20.1 microns, 99% efficient @ 20.0000001 microns, 99% efficient @ 21 microns, @ 22 microns, etc etc. And since we can all see that there's not much difference between 20.00000001 and 20, then the filter is essentially 99% efficient at 20 microns as well. If you don't agree with this, then so be it. Contact Motorking/Jay Buckley of FRAM and ask him about it. He has already stated this on here before, and so have other BITOG members as well.