WIX XP Opinions..

[Phishin]

The Wix XP/Napa Platinum are GREAT filters. Don't let people fool ya. Most people on this board are FOOLS.

"Fram Ultra is a way better filter".....they have NOTHING to back that up with.

These Wix/Platinum filters are built like TANKS. They can hold a lot of debris. I'd run them on anything I own, and I do.

My Platinum Findings

 

[paulri]

Originally Posted By: metalone
Define "oil filter"


Originally Posted By: CT8
It is an oil filter.


Had to laugh at that one.

 

[dblshock]

Originally Posted By: Phishin
The Wix XP/Napa Platinum are GREAT filters. Don't let people fool ya. Most people on this board are FOOLS.

"Fram Ultra is a way better filter".....they have NOTHING to back that up with.

These Wix/Platinum filters are built like TANKS. They can hold a lot of debris. I'd run them on anything I own, and I do.

My Platinum Findings



Thank You.

 

[KCJeep]

Typical of Wix, the XP is stoutly built. However if you want your oil filter to actually well... filter...they are a rotten choice. A 3 buck paper filter has better filtering ability than Wix's XP.

Wix's best filter is the regular black can Wix/Napa Gold, which is more than adequate for 10k OCI's and has a 95% efficiency. It also sells for half the price.

JMO.

 

[BlueSmoke16]

I run them on my F150 that sits outside in Minnesota winters.

I want the flow through the media during those long warms ups as soon as possible.

I assume ...right or wrong that the more porous media flows more freely.

Regards,

Scott

 

[southernjeeper]

Originally Posted By: KingCake
Fram ultra is better in every way.


Wix has horrible efficiency. Many report recent problems with ADBV/gasket. Bad.


You must be paid by Fram to say that.

I dunno where you get that bad info.

Wix is a very very good filter for oil.

Napa Gold's made by WIX

WIX. Is all I use. I have used the XP filter and was just trying it.
Like the wix has on their site. There is a conventional filter by wix, then the next size that is an all black casing, then there is the XP. The XP is great or better suited for synthetic oil. Longer intervals and vehicles used for towing and such. I guess more of a performance filter?? Or it's just a premium oil filter.

The middle quality filter is best for dirty or dusty environments.

I dunno about the conventional filter but the other two have the better anti-drainback valve.

Fram filters are just sold mostly in Wally worlds across the country for people that think they are good filters.

Go to a auto parts only type of store and GET A BETTER OIL FILTER!!!

My 2cents.

 

[mazdamonky]

The Fram Ultra and Wix XP are both built like tanks and both built for extended drains. They will both serve a function and filter oil. The only major difference is the Fram has what seems to be a considerably better filtration rate. How much difference this makes, nobody knows. For some such as myself, the higher filtration efficiency is peace of mind. I would however use a Wix XP if it was in my stash already or if it was free. If I am spending my hard earned money, I would look elsewhere. Higher filtration efficiency should mean less particles making it through and should mean less particles to cause early wear on engine parts. For all we know, the lower filtration rating on the Wix could cause the bypass to open far less often which may actually protect your engine further. Nobody really knows. It just depends on what helps you sleep at night. I would run both but would rather pay for a Fram ultra.

 

[sprite1741]

Since Wix is now owned by Mann and Hummel, the parent company of Purolator, I no longer use Wix. In case they incorporate the same changes and lack of quality of Purolator, let someone else be the Guinea pig. I used to use Wix and they were great. If they don't change I may go back to them. Not taking a chance, especially since the last 2 ACDelco classic's I dissected were a 10 out of 10. Fram Ultra would be my choice if I wanted a high end filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Phishin
The Wix XP/Napa Platinum are GREAT filters. Don't let people fool ya. Most people on this board are FOOLS.

"Fram Ultra is a way better filter".....they have NOTHING to back that up with.

These Wix/Platinum filters are built like TANKS. They can hold a lot of debris. I'd run them on anything I own, and I do.

My Platinum Findings


How are they so great if they are at the bottom of the efficiency scale? I guess if someone doesn't care about filtering efficiency, then they are "great" filters.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: southernjeeper
Originally Posted By: KingCake
Fram ultra is better in every way.

Wix has horrible efficiency. Many report recent problems with ADBV/gasket. Bad.


You must be paid by Fram to say that.

I dunno where you get that bad info.


What info is "bad"?

 

[bullwinkle]

The XP/Platinum is a great rock catcher, but if one was used for a really long OCI, like an Ultra-level 15K, the efficiency would gradually get better. I just don't like the price, when an Ultra is consistently $9 (or less AR), and a Platinum/XP is generally at least $2-$3 more, for a lot worse efficiency.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

The Wix XP (Napa Platinum) is an awesome filter and well-made.

However, both the XP and Fram Ultra are only worth it for extended drains (over 10k), or if you find them on sale (sometimes Napa Platinum is on sale for $7.99). If you're just going by the maintenance minder, just use regular Wix.

 

[Nate1979]

Friends don't let friends run rock catchers......

 

[GGilbert]

Wow.I have had good luck with this filter.I use one on my 04 cummins @ 10k oil changes. UOAs come back looking nice. Hope the new ownership leaves a good thing alone

 

[holdorf333]

it doesn't actually matter. 4% isn't going to make a hill of beans worth of difference. you aren't looking at the difference between function and fail.

BITOG will make you weird about nonsense like efficiency ratings. just screw the filter on and spend your time on here looking for better oil deals and under valve cover porn.

 

[Phishin]

Originally Posted By: holdorf333
it doesn't actually matter. 4% isn't going to make a hill of beans worth of difference. you aren't looking at the difference between function and fail.

BITOG will make you weird about nonsense like efficiency ratings. just screw the filter on and spend your time on here looking for better oil deals and under valve cover porn.


Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!!! We got a winner.

People here say: "99% is better than 95%" but for the most part, they have no idea just what the actual difference is in particle counts or wear that can be attributed to such, when looking a 95% vs. 99% efficient filter. It's non-sense, really.

To be honest, the difference (in engine protection) between a filter with 50% efficiency vs. 99% efficiency isn't understood either. There are ALWAYS wear particles circulating in your oil. You can't get rid of them. Trapping them 99% of the time in an oil filter SOUNDS so much better than catching 50% of these particles every time they run through the filter media. Of course. But no really knows what the real difference in preventing wear actually is.

 

[deven]

People forget that when this site first launched Bob did an experiment with engines running oil without an oil filter and nothing happened to these engines and they kept running. So if one filter is 99% efficient at 20 microns and another at 25 microns means very little.

 

[Ihatetochangeoil]

Originally Posted By: deven
People forget that when this site first launched Bob did an experiment with engines running oil without an oil filter and nothing happened to these engines and they kept running. So if one filter is 99% efficient at 20 microns and another at 25 microns means very little.


Of course these engines were started regularly at -20F, immediately floor boarded, towed 15,000 pounds through the Rockies at 75 mph uphill and nonstop through Death Valley, had 30k oil changes, dyno tested to 412 hp under load and run that way for days on end. See motor oil university.

And the only ones who ever win the bets at county fairs on how long an engine will run after draining the oil are Fram worshippers. Not.

I do agree there is a lot of tripe on this site, the user needs to be adult enough to separate fact from opinion and fiction. I HAVE learned some valuable things here totally unrelated to oil, such as, my wife's 8 month old wipers started squeaking, and rather than taking a sledgehammer to the windshield, (which I was tempted to do), I ordered a set of silicone wiper blades (at 25% of the cost of my first car). https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4224932/Re:_Anyone_running_silicone_wi#Post4224932

And if any of the armchair tribologists care to predict the efficiency of my oil filtration, I'm open: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4223331/Re:_centrifuge#Post4223331

[/quote] To be honest, the difference (in engine protection) between a filter with 50% efficiency vs. 99% efficiency isn't understood either. There are ALWAYS wear particles circulating in your oil. You can't get rid of them. Trapping them 99% of the time in an oil filter SOUNDS so much better than catching 50% of these particles every time they run through the filter media. Of course. But no really knows what the real difference in preventing wear actually is. [/quote]

I'm working on that.

So where is the edge of known technology in oil filtration & efficiency; and what are BITOGERS doing to push the limits?

To the OP: you must do whatever lets you sleep at night, and if you try to please everyone, you will lose your Hiney. Peace.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Phishin
To be honest, the difference (in engine protection) between a filter with 50% efficiency vs. 99% efficiency isn't understood either. There are ALWAYS wear particles circulating in your oil. You can't get rid of them. Trapping them 99% of the time in an oil filter SOUNDS so much better than catching 50% of these particles every time they run through the filter media. Of course. But no really knows what the real difference in preventing wear actually is.


If you read papers on the correlation between engine wear and particle size you'll see that most wear is caused by particles below 25 microns.

So it's logical to believe that a filter that is 99% @ 20 microns will capture more particles below 25 microns quicker (ie, with less passes of the oil through the filter) than a filter that is only 50% @ 20 microns.

Less wear results when less particles have a change to circulate through the engine, and ultimately less particles will circulate through the engine with a higher efficiency oil filter. Pretty basic logic, so based on that I'd rather use a 99% @ 20 micron vs a 50% @ 20 micron filter.

 

[danthaman1980]

Fram Ultra vs. Wix XP? I've used both and cut both open. Fram Ultra is probably a better filter in most circumstances, but I believe the Wix XP probably has more media surface area and lower pressure drop across the media. Those characteristics might make it better suited for extremely long OCIs.