Thank you, Toptierpao. I am very curious to see if it is actually 50% at 20 microns. I hope they will give us some real answers lol.
Wix XP efficiency
- Thread starter ZraHamilton
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
I do not know what to believe with any of the oil filter claims from any of the manufacturers.
If a filter maker shows the efficiency as tested per ISO 4548-12 then that gives way more confidence that it's true.
A company is not going to risk a false advertising lawsuit when there is some test spec reference that someone could disprove the claim.
BTW, WIX does not reference a test spec, and they won't tell you what it is if you ask. I asked them on the phone once and they said it was "proprietary information". That's a bunch of bull.
I do not know what to believe with any of the oil filter claims from any of the manufacturers.
If a filter maker shows the efficiency as tested per ISO 4548-12 then that gives way more confidence that it's true.
A company is not going to risk a false advertising lawsuit when there is some test spec reference that someone could disprove the claim.
BTW, WIX does not reference a test spec, and they won't tell you what it is if you ask. I asked them on the phone once and they said it was "proprietary information". That's a bunch of bull.
Originally Posted By: ZraHamilton
Thank you, Toptierpao. I am very curious to see if it is actually 50% at 20 microns. I hope they will give us some real answers lol.
That's what WIX advertised for a long time, and they told me that and many others here on the phone a while back.
Now they are saying 99% at 35 microns to make it seem better, but 99% at 35 microns basically equates to 50% at 20 microns.
Thank you, Toptierpao. I am very curious to see if it is actually 50% at 20 microns. I hope they will give us some real answers lol.
That's what WIX advertised for a long time, and they told me that and many others here on the phone a while back.
Now they are saying 99% at 35 microns to make it seem better, but 99% at 35 microns basically equates to 50% at 20 microns.
My dad says the wix XP and Napa platinum are the same oil filter. Which one should be used if you can buy both for the same price? The XP?
Originally Posted By: CajunLariat
My dad says the wix XP and Napa platinum are the same oil filter. Which one should be used if you can buy both for the same price? The XP?
They are indeed the same filter. No reason to pick one over the other if both are the same price
My dad says the wix XP and Napa platinum are the same oil filter. Which one should be used if you can buy both for the same price? The XP?
They are indeed the same filter. No reason to pick one over the other if both are the same price
Originally Posted By: CajunLariat
My dad says the wix XP and Napa platinum are the same oil filter. Which one should be used if you can buy both for the same price? The XP?
Is this a trick question?
Which one has the cooler paint job and stickers?
My dad says the wix XP and Napa platinum are the same oil filter. Which one should be used if you can buy both for the same price? The XP?
Is this a trick question?
Which one has the cooler paint job and stickers?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: CajunLariat
My dad says the wix XP and Napa platinum are the same oil filter. Which one should be used if you can buy both for the same price? The XP?
Is this a trick question?
Which one has the cooler paint job and stickers?
The xp? I just thought that if wix makes the Napa plat. that it would be better to go with the name brand. Is that right? My dad says he can get the 51516xp online for $10.79 and the 51516 for $8.97. O'reillys and Napa sells the wix and plat. for .$10.79 and $10.99 add tax.And Napa has the Gold FOR $6.02 add tax. He only goes 5000 miles every oil change.
Originally Posted By: CajunLariat
My dad says the wix XP and Napa platinum are the same oil filter. Which one should be used if you can buy both for the same price? The XP?
Is this a trick question?
Which one has the cooler paint job and stickers?
The xp? I just thought that if wix makes the Napa plat. that it would be better to go with the name brand. Is that right? My dad says he can get the 51516xp online for $10.79 and the 51516 for $8.97. O'reillys and Napa sells the wix and plat. for .$10.79 and $10.99 add tax.And Napa has the Gold FOR $6.02 add tax. He only goes 5000 miles every oil change.
They are exactly the same. One filter off the assmembly line gets a napa platinum sticker, and the other gets a wix xp sticker.
Go to the wix website and you will notice that Wix will not publish the filter effeciency for the xp line on the filters I use. Wix does list the filter effeciency for their normal line of filters.
Yes they have the technology and equipment to know the effeciency on the xp line. They will not state that it is the same - and I would not either.
Several years back Wix did state the effeciency on some of the xp filters and if I remember correctly they were lower. I never bought an xp filter and remember thinking I did not want one.
I will go with a fram xg or standard wix.
Yes they have the technology and equipment to know the effeciency on the xp line. They will not state that it is the same - and I would not either.
Several years back Wix did state the effeciency on some of the xp filters and if I remember correctly they were lower. I never bought an xp filter and remember thinking I did not want one.
I will go with a fram xg or standard wix.
Here is what Wix said in emails a few days ago.This is not the first time I have emailed them and the response is always the same.They share nothing and are all over the place with generic answers. Nothing really to see as it is the same things all of you have already reported.Here are the replies.Looks like different answers from different associates.
1/19/18.....Unfortunately we do not list Beta ratios on any of our XP products. This information is not available.
1/19/18.....Here is the information that we provide for XP filters…WIX XP Oil filters use synthetic media and provide robust engine protection when using synthetic motor oil for extreme driving conditions such as towing, extreme idle time, lower gear mountainous climbs, long periods at highway speeds and extreme cold throughout the OE manufacturer’s recommended oil and filter change interval.
A specifically formulated gasket provides an excellent seal during extreme cold engine starts and resist hardening under elevated oil temperatures.
For spin-ons, WIX XP silicone anti-drain back valves protect against dry starts past the traditional filter change interval. WIX XP is 99% efficient at 35 microns based on 51515XP, 51365XP and 57060XP
1/19/18..... B2=20 means 50% efficient at 20 microns.
Here is a reply from Nick from Fram
1/19/18.....FRAM typically rates the filters based on multi-pass efficiency not beta ratio, this is the ISO 4548-12 standard.
Beta is just another way of representing efficiency. For the FRAM Ultra Synthetic oil filters Beta 20=100, Beta 16=75, to simplify that this means that the efficiency at 20 micron is 99+% and at 16 micron is 98.7%.
I hope this information helps. Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Thank you,
Nick
1/19/18.....Unfortunately we do not list Beta ratios on any of our XP products. This information is not available.
1/19/18.....Here is the information that we provide for XP filters…WIX XP Oil filters use synthetic media and provide robust engine protection when using synthetic motor oil for extreme driving conditions such as towing, extreme idle time, lower gear mountainous climbs, long periods at highway speeds and extreme cold throughout the OE manufacturer’s recommended oil and filter change interval.
A specifically formulated gasket provides an excellent seal during extreme cold engine starts and resist hardening under elevated oil temperatures.
For spin-ons, WIX XP silicone anti-drain back valves protect against dry starts past the traditional filter change interval. WIX XP is 99% efficient at 35 microns based on 51515XP, 51365XP and 57060XP
1/19/18..... B2=20 means 50% efficient at 20 microns.
Here is a reply from Nick from Fram
1/19/18.....FRAM typically rates the filters based on multi-pass efficiency not beta ratio, this is the ISO 4548-12 standard.
Beta is just another way of representing efficiency. For the FRAM Ultra Synthetic oil filters Beta 20=100, Beta 16=75, to simplify that this means that the efficiency at 20 micron is 99+% and at 16 micron is 98.7%.
I hope this information helps. Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Thank you,
Nick
When starting from a brand new engine and premium lubes, there is no necessity to have a high efficiency oil filter in most cases.
Where it does become an issue, is on neglected or dirty engines. When an engine gets like that, I would definitely want to have the best efficiency possible. Especially given that things may start coming loose and be cleaned out by a quality lube. Better to catch in the filter than anywhere else.
Where it does become an issue, is on neglected or dirty engines. When an engine gets like that, I would definitely want to have the best efficiency possible. Especially given that things may start coming loose and be cleaned out by a quality lube. Better to catch in the filter than anywhere else.
dnewton3
Staff member
SAE902238 filter study shows a very good correlation between particulate count in the oil and the wear metals in UOAs.
DO NOT construe that to mean that UOAs will show us all wear; that is patently untrue. UOAs are a great indicator of an overall relative wear trend. UOAs cannot see all wear; they can only see a portion of wear. But there is very good data from more than one study to conclude that UOAs can be used to track "normal" wear. Abnormal wear events (especially those of acute nature and not chronic nature) are going to be missed because the onset is too fast to be caught by intermittent sampling.
UOAs are not the ONLY way to track wear; we can use tear-down analysis. But TDs are stupidly expensive, grossly time-consuming, and induce measurement errors in regard to gage R&R. And so UOAs are the PRACTICAL way to track wear, for a low cost and quick turn-around of info. UOAs are NOT perfect, and will not see all wear. UOAs are a pragmatic way to track wear trends and are very useful IF USED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS IN MIND.
HOWEVER, we need to understand the contributors to "wear".
- There is break-in wear.
- There is abrasive foreign material wear.
- There is metal-to-metal incumbent component wear.
- There is corrosive wear.
It is also a very foolish thing to believe that because one uses a more efficient oil filter, they will get "less wear", because oil filters cannot affect some kinds of wear at all, and can only affect other types of wear in partial sense.
Break-in wear is due mostly to high asperity contact. A smaller portion is also due to residual foreign materials (left over machining remnants, fluid debris, etc). I am going to exclude this because this only occurs after manufacturing (or remanufacturing) of the components. Asperity is due to large aggressive peaks fighting against each other (think mountain to mountain). Once the asperity is reduced, and a few OCIs take place, this is typically over with.
Abrasive wear is mainly due to foreign materials. The bulk of this in a modern engine is due to two things: silica and soot.
- Silica is either sucked in via intake typically, or forced in, such as dirt accidentally enters via an opening like an oil fill cap, or valve cover off, etc. Silica can be big or small, but it never changes size.
- Soot is the byproduct of the incomplete combustion process. Soot is dangerous because it can grow in particle size. It typically starts out sub-micron, but can agglomerate (co-join) with other soot particles and get bigger.
Metal-to-metal incumbent wear is due to asperity contact on a smaller scale. Think of not mountains but hills. Because the terrain is smaller and smoother, the damage is far less. This is also muted due to the TCB (tribochemical barrier; a coating of oxidative compounds that fills in the hills, and coats most everything. A separate topic for another day).
Corrosive wear is controlled by two things: reducing moisture in the system and chemicals that abate the reaction. Sealed crankcases and good lube packages essentially make this moot today. Oil filters have zilch to do with this. This is strictly controlled by avoidance of moisture, and treating the lube.
In today's modern engines, there are three things that greatly aid longevity:
1) good air filtration reduces silica ingestion
2) good combustion processes (combustion chamber design and fuel injection control) that greatly reduces soot generation
3) good lube products (the anti-agglomerate packages basically keep soot from getting bigger and oxidation byproducts in suspension)
And so, the famous "bus study" (city buses with 2-stroke DD diesel engines) is two things to us BITOGers
1- it is useful in that it proves particulate loading does indeed show good correlation to UOA wear metals (Fe directly tracked with loading)
2- it's not useful because nothing we drive today is anywhere near this "dirty" in terms of junk sucked in and/or soot load.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason we don't see major shifts in wear data in modern vehicles is not because of "oil filtration", but rather because the AIR FILTERS and LUBE ADDITIVES are helping control wear MORE than oil filters?
I am not saying oil filtration is worthless; that's not my point. I have repeatedly stated in many of these threads that oil filtration is secondary to an good lube and air filter system. Oil filters are important, but only to control major chunks of stuff. All the smaller stuff is stopped by the air filter, or stopped from growing by the lube additives. THIS IS WHY WE DO NOT SEE ANY WEAR-DATA TREND SHIFT WITH THE USE OF PREMIUM FILTERS TODAY.
Whereas the oil filter WAS (past tense) the primary means of controlling wear, it is now secondary to the other means of wear control, which is to control ingestion and creation of wear particles.
This is why a 50% 20um filter and a 99% 20um filter will essentially show the same UOA data. UOAs most certainly WILL show a disparity of wear trends relative to filter choice ONLY if the overall engine system is old and dirty running. Clean running engines with good air filters and good lubes do NOT gain any appreciable wear protection from super-duper oil filters.
You cannot fairly credit an oil filter for the work of air filter and the lube add-pack. That is a fool's errand.
An oil filter cannot stop damage that would never occur in the first place, due to other controls in place that prevent the issue in the first place.
Good air filters with well-made sealed systems, along with sealed PCV systems, and a good lube add-pack, do FAR, FAR more to control wear today than does an oil filter. As long as you have an oil filter that will catch the rare chunk from the stream, the rest is on auto-pilot. As long as an oil filter stops the RARE occurrence of large debris, it's doing it's job. Most all oil filters are "good enough" to deal with large chunks.
You have to understand that occurrence rates are different than stoppage percentages. Until you understand that, you'll never get a handle on this topic of oil filtration in today's engines. Plus particulate loading can be sub-divided into particle size and particle quantity.
Put most simply for the average consumer ...
The air filter keeps silica out.
The lube keeps the soot small.
The oil filter has very little to catch in the first place, so changes in efficiency do not correlate to wear trend shifts because the occurrence rates are too small to appreciably be distinguished in wear data. What does exist in the system is too small for the oil filter to generally affect; hence it's moot for most concern. Having an oil filter effect that is good enough is not made "better" with finer filtration. An oil filter cannot stop what is not present, or is too small to get trapped.
DO NOT construe that to mean that UOAs will show us all wear; that is patently untrue. UOAs are a great indicator of an overall relative wear trend. UOAs cannot see all wear; they can only see a portion of wear. But there is very good data from more than one study to conclude that UOAs can be used to track "normal" wear. Abnormal wear events (especially those of acute nature and not chronic nature) are going to be missed because the onset is too fast to be caught by intermittent sampling.
UOAs are not the ONLY way to track wear; we can use tear-down analysis. But TDs are stupidly expensive, grossly time-consuming, and induce measurement errors in regard to gage R&R. And so UOAs are the PRACTICAL way to track wear, for a low cost and quick turn-around of info. UOAs are NOT perfect, and will not see all wear. UOAs are a pragmatic way to track wear trends and are very useful IF USED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS IN MIND.
HOWEVER, we need to understand the contributors to "wear".
- There is break-in wear.
- There is abrasive foreign material wear.
- There is metal-to-metal incumbent component wear.
- There is corrosive wear.
It is also a very foolish thing to believe that because one uses a more efficient oil filter, they will get "less wear", because oil filters cannot affect some kinds of wear at all, and can only affect other types of wear in partial sense.
Break-in wear is due mostly to high asperity contact. A smaller portion is also due to residual foreign materials (left over machining remnants, fluid debris, etc). I am going to exclude this because this only occurs after manufacturing (or remanufacturing) of the components. Asperity is due to large aggressive peaks fighting against each other (think mountain to mountain). Once the asperity is reduced, and a few OCIs take place, this is typically over with.
Abrasive wear is mainly due to foreign materials. The bulk of this in a modern engine is due to two things: silica and soot.
- Silica is either sucked in via intake typically, or forced in, such as dirt accidentally enters via an opening like an oil fill cap, or valve cover off, etc. Silica can be big or small, but it never changes size.
- Soot is the byproduct of the incomplete combustion process. Soot is dangerous because it can grow in particle size. It typically starts out sub-micron, but can agglomerate (co-join) with other soot particles and get bigger.
Metal-to-metal incumbent wear is due to asperity contact on a smaller scale. Think of not mountains but hills. Because the terrain is smaller and smoother, the damage is far less. This is also muted due to the TCB (tribochemical barrier; a coating of oxidative compounds that fills in the hills, and coats most everything. A separate topic for another day).
Corrosive wear is controlled by two things: reducing moisture in the system and chemicals that abate the reaction. Sealed crankcases and good lube packages essentially make this moot today. Oil filters have zilch to do with this. This is strictly controlled by avoidance of moisture, and treating the lube.
In today's modern engines, there are three things that greatly aid longevity:
1) good air filtration reduces silica ingestion
2) good combustion processes (combustion chamber design and fuel injection control) that greatly reduces soot generation
3) good lube products (the anti-agglomerate packages basically keep soot from getting bigger and oxidation byproducts in suspension)
And so, the famous "bus study" (city buses with 2-stroke DD diesel engines) is two things to us BITOGers
1- it is useful in that it proves particulate loading does indeed show good correlation to UOA wear metals (Fe directly tracked with loading)
2- it's not useful because nothing we drive today is anywhere near this "dirty" in terms of junk sucked in and/or soot load.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason we don't see major shifts in wear data in modern vehicles is not because of "oil filtration", but rather because the AIR FILTERS and LUBE ADDITIVES are helping control wear MORE than oil filters?
I am not saying oil filtration is worthless; that's not my point. I have repeatedly stated in many of these threads that oil filtration is secondary to an good lube and air filter system. Oil filters are important, but only to control major chunks of stuff. All the smaller stuff is stopped by the air filter, or stopped from growing by the lube additives. THIS IS WHY WE DO NOT SEE ANY WEAR-DATA TREND SHIFT WITH THE USE OF PREMIUM FILTERS TODAY.
Whereas the oil filter WAS (past tense) the primary means of controlling wear, it is now secondary to the other means of wear control, which is to control ingestion and creation of wear particles.
This is why a 50% 20um filter and a 99% 20um filter will essentially show the same UOA data. UOAs most certainly WILL show a disparity of wear trends relative to filter choice ONLY if the overall engine system is old and dirty running. Clean running engines with good air filters and good lubes do NOT gain any appreciable wear protection from super-duper oil filters.
You cannot fairly credit an oil filter for the work of air filter and the lube add-pack. That is a fool's errand.
An oil filter cannot stop damage that would never occur in the first place, due to other controls in place that prevent the issue in the first place.
Good air filters with well-made sealed systems, along with sealed PCV systems, and a good lube add-pack, do FAR, FAR more to control wear today than does an oil filter. As long as you have an oil filter that will catch the rare chunk from the stream, the rest is on auto-pilot. As long as an oil filter stops the RARE occurrence of large debris, it's doing it's job. Most all oil filters are "good enough" to deal with large chunks.
You have to understand that occurrence rates are different than stoppage percentages. Until you understand that, you'll never get a handle on this topic of oil filtration in today's engines. Plus particulate loading can be sub-divided into particle size and particle quantity.
Put most simply for the average consumer ...
The air filter keeps silica out.
The lube keeps the soot small.
The oil filter has very little to catch in the first place, so changes in efficiency do not correlate to wear trend shifts because the occurrence rates are too small to appreciably be distinguished in wear data. What does exist in the system is too small for the oil filter to generally affect; hence it's moot for most concern. Having an oil filter effect that is good enough is not made "better" with finer filtration. An oil filter cannot stop what is not present, or is too small to get trapped.
Last edited:
dnewton3 - That all makes sense, and I agree that's why UOAs aren't a good way to determine oil filter performance. Really need an ISO cleanliness particle count to detect the filter's effect on the oil cleanliness. As the SAE "bus study" showed, cleaner oil means less wear. As you elude to, the UOA is influenced by the combined "system" of the oil, air filter and oil filter, so it's hard to gleen out just the oil filter's effect on wear.
Even if there was only 1000 particles that were 20 microns ever produced over a 5000 mile oil change, I'd still use a 99% at 20u oil filter. IMO, there are just way too many variables to not use a good filter - for me that's an oil filter that is 95% @ 20u or better.
Why weaken the "system" by using a low performance oil filter and hope that the other two players (oil and air filter) pick up the slack.
Even if there was only 1000 particles that were 20 microns ever produced over a 5000 mile oil change, I'd still use a 99% at 20u oil filter. IMO, there are just way too many variables to not use a good filter - for me that's an oil filter that is 95% @ 20u or better.
Why weaken the "system" by using a low performance oil filter and hope that the other two players (oil and air filter) pick up the slack.
dnewton3
Staff member
Zee - you and I are on the same page typically; I agree with you. I would not use a 50% 20um filter (Wix XP) when there are other "better" choices out there, for less money. That I agree with whole-heartedly.
I think most of today's filters are "good enough" (80%, 95%, 99% at 20um) that anyone can walk into any storefront and get a decent filter. I do agree that 99% is better than 80%, but the shift in that efficiency is just so small in terms of pragmatic effect, it's not worth me worrying over. Not one person here has data that proves it otherwise. There's not one SAE study I'm aware of that specifically shows a delineation in this manner. All oil filter studies are either really old (not useful today) or GROSSLY manipulated into unrealistic parameters to draw out the effects.
The reality is that advancements in engine design, air filtration, and lube control now outweigh the concern of oil filtration, past "good enough". No one here is ever going to get "better" wear simply because they chose a FU or TG over a MC or a Wix in a "normal" OCI. Just not going to happen in the conditions we BITOGer operate under.
It's not like a large particle in circulation will only begat other large particles; that's not how it works. It's a scheme of parlayed echoes. A particle that does damage will create a sizeable range of additional particles. Silica or soot which are large enough to do damage will make lot's of stuff in the size spectrum. A UOA will not find ALL the evidence, but it will find the portion visible to the spectral analysis. Hence, if the UOA does not see the lower size portion of wear, it's likely that the larger stuff isn't happening with any regularity either.
This is why I say we can't have it both ways. We can't state the bus study proves wear tracks with particulate loading, but then ignore the fact that the study ALSO shows the particulate loading directly echos in the spectral Fe data. We cannot fairly decide to just ride half the equation, and then try to leap off the merry-go-round! If we accept that less particles means less wear due to finer filtration, then we must also accept that no shift in wear means that filters made no difference, when all other inputs where held constant! Using a good air filter, using a good lube, pretty much mute the effect of 80% vs 99% oil filter choices.
So the UOAs of today's vehicles are showing us that wear just isn't affected by oil filter choice, as long as you're using a "good enough" filter. Using a "better" filter isn't creating the echo in wear data.
I think most of today's filters are "good enough" (80%, 95%, 99% at 20um) that anyone can walk into any storefront and get a decent filter. I do agree that 99% is better than 80%, but the shift in that efficiency is just so small in terms of pragmatic effect, it's not worth me worrying over. Not one person here has data that proves it otherwise. There's not one SAE study I'm aware of that specifically shows a delineation in this manner. All oil filter studies are either really old (not useful today) or GROSSLY manipulated into unrealistic parameters to draw out the effects.
The reality is that advancements in engine design, air filtration, and lube control now outweigh the concern of oil filtration, past "good enough". No one here is ever going to get "better" wear simply because they chose a FU or TG over a MC or a Wix in a "normal" OCI. Just not going to happen in the conditions we BITOGer operate under.
It's not like a large particle in circulation will only begat other large particles; that's not how it works. It's a scheme of parlayed echoes. A particle that does damage will create a sizeable range of additional particles. Silica or soot which are large enough to do damage will make lot's of stuff in the size spectrum. A UOA will not find ALL the evidence, but it will find the portion visible to the spectral analysis. Hence, if the UOA does not see the lower size portion of wear, it's likely that the larger stuff isn't happening with any regularity either.
This is why I say we can't have it both ways. We can't state the bus study proves wear tracks with particulate loading, but then ignore the fact that the study ALSO shows the particulate loading directly echos in the spectral Fe data. We cannot fairly decide to just ride half the equation, and then try to leap off the merry-go-round! If we accept that less particles means less wear due to finer filtration, then we must also accept that no shift in wear means that filters made no difference, when all other inputs where held constant! Using a good air filter, using a good lube, pretty much mute the effect of 80% vs 99% oil filter choices.
So the UOAs of today's vehicles are showing us that wear just isn't affected by oil filter choice, as long as you're using a "good enough" filter. Using a "better" filter isn't creating the echo in wear data.
WOW! Thats alot to read dnewton3. My dad did say you were the member to tell it like it is. In simple terms would it be better if we bought a napa Gold oil filter instead of a Wix xp? My dad (blueovalfitter) likes Motorcraft oil filters. I work at a Ford dealership and can buy Motorcraft filters a little bit less then what Walmart sells them for. And after tax also. Would a Motorcraft filter be better then a Wix xp? And better then a napa Gold? My dad had me buy a Fram ultra for my engine but he wants to use a napa Gold or a Wix xp on his engine for his next oil change. Also on my engine after we let the Mobil1 0w40 finish cleaning the engine.
Motorcraft has better efficiency than the XP, and NAPA Gold has better efficiency than MC or XP (same as a Fram orange EG at 95% @ 20u). Even dnewton3 said he would use something better than 50% @ 20 microns. Use that Ultra and keep reminding BOF that you are using a higher tier filter -
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Zee - you and I are on the same page typically; I agree with you. I would not use a 50% 20um filter (Wix XP) when there are other "better" choices out there, for less money. That I agree with whole-heartedly.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Zee - you and I are on the same page typically; I agree with you. I would not use a 50% 20um filter (Wix XP) when there are other "better" choices out there, for less money. That I agree with whole-heartedly.
I would add-if you're running relatively short OCIs, like 3-5K, on a relatively clean engine with a decent air filter, there's not going to be enough contamination to make any difference in wear, no matter what oil filter you run, AS LONG AS the filter doesn't disintegrate and start plugging oil galleries, piston oil squirters, etc. (I'm looking at you, Purolator). Now if you're going to use M1 EP, AP, or another premium full synthetic oil (like Amsoil) and push it over 10K, or for multiple OCIs-that's when a better quality filter would help.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Zee - you and I are on the same page typically; I agree with you. I would not use a 50% 20um filter (Wix XP) when there are other "better" choices out there, for less money. That I agree with whole-heartedly.
I think most of today's filters are "good enough" (80%, 95%, 99% at 20um) that anyone can walk into any storefront and get a decent filter. I do agree that 99% is better than 80%, but the shift in that efficiency is just so small in terms of pragmatic effect, it's not worth me worrying over. Not one person here has data that proves it otherwise. There's not one SAE study I'm aware of that specifically shows a delineation in this manner. All oil filter studies are either really old (not useful today) or GROSSLY manipulated into unrealistic parameters to draw out the effects.
The reality is that advancements in engine design, air filtration, and lube control now outweigh the concern of oil filtration, past "good enough". No one here is ever going to get "better" wear simply because they chose a FU or TG over a MC or a Wix in a "normal" OCI. Just not going to happen in the conditions we BITOGer operate under.
It's not like a large particle in circulation will only begat other large particles; that's not how it works. It's a scheme of parlayed echoes. A particle that does damage will create a sizeable range of additional particles. Silica or soot which are large enough to do damage will make lot's of stuff in the size spectrum. A UOA will not find ALL the evidence, but it will find the portion visible to the spectral analysis. Hence, if the UOA does not see the lower size portion of wear, it's likely that the larger stuff isn't happening with any regularity either.
This is why I say we can't have it both ways. We can't state the bus study proves wear tracks with particulate loading, but then ignore the fact that the study ALSO shows the particulate loading directly echos in the spectral Fe data. We cannot fairly decide to just ride half the equation, and then try to leap off the merry-go-round! If we accept that less particles means less wear due to finer filtration, then we must also accept that no shift in wear means that filters made no difference, when all other inputs where held constant! Using a good air filter, using a good lube, pretty much mute the effect of 80% vs 99% oil filter choices.
So the UOAs of today's vehicles are showing us that wear just isn't affected by oil filter choice, as long as you're using a "good enough" filter. Using a "better" filter isn't creating the echo in wear data.
Thanks for both explanations, they make a lot of sense!
Zee - you and I are on the same page typically; I agree with you. I would not use a 50% 20um filter (Wix XP) when there are other "better" choices out there, for less money. That I agree with whole-heartedly.
I think most of today's filters are "good enough" (80%, 95%, 99% at 20um) that anyone can walk into any storefront and get a decent filter. I do agree that 99% is better than 80%, but the shift in that efficiency is just so small in terms of pragmatic effect, it's not worth me worrying over. Not one person here has data that proves it otherwise. There's not one SAE study I'm aware of that specifically shows a delineation in this manner. All oil filter studies are either really old (not useful today) or GROSSLY manipulated into unrealistic parameters to draw out the effects.
The reality is that advancements in engine design, air filtration, and lube control now outweigh the concern of oil filtration, past "good enough". No one here is ever going to get "better" wear simply because they chose a FU or TG over a MC or a Wix in a "normal" OCI. Just not going to happen in the conditions we BITOGer operate under.
It's not like a large particle in circulation will only begat other large particles; that's not how it works. It's a scheme of parlayed echoes. A particle that does damage will create a sizeable range of additional particles. Silica or soot which are large enough to do damage will make lot's of stuff in the size spectrum. A UOA will not find ALL the evidence, but it will find the portion visible to the spectral analysis. Hence, if the UOA does not see the lower size portion of wear, it's likely that the larger stuff isn't happening with any regularity either.
This is why I say we can't have it both ways. We can't state the bus study proves wear tracks with particulate loading, but then ignore the fact that the study ALSO shows the particulate loading directly echos in the spectral Fe data. We cannot fairly decide to just ride half the equation, and then try to leap off the merry-go-round! If we accept that less particles means less wear due to finer filtration, then we must also accept that no shift in wear means that filters made no difference, when all other inputs where held constant! Using a good air filter, using a good lube, pretty much mute the effect of 80% vs 99% oil filter choices.
So the UOAs of today's vehicles are showing us that wear just isn't affected by oil filter choice, as long as you're using a "good enough" filter. Using a "better" filter isn't creating the echo in wear data.
Thanks for both explanations, they make a lot of sense!
Genuinely good stuff. Thanks.
- Status
Similar threads
