Motorcraft FL-820S vs. Wix 51372
- Thread starter Falcon_LS
- Start date
- Status
I've found WIX to flow very well and use them on my cars. NAPA GOLD are also WIX oil filters.
Beta of the Wix is 2/20 = 12/25. 50% @ 12 micron, 95% @ 25 micron.
Amsoil test shows the Motorcraft as 93.7% @ 20 micron. So, just a little bit better than the Wix.
Amsoil test shows the Motorcraft as 93.7% @ 20 micron. So, just a little bit better than the Wix.
Stick with the FL820S. Until recently it's efficiency was really unknown. Recent Amsoil testing showed ~94%@20um, fine. BTW, never seen the linked 8 gram MC published spec, but if true that's still a lot of junk.
Wix 51372 data sheet shows beta 2/20=12/25, 95%@25um, not bad either. Also been shown here recently, in this application the Wix/Napa Gold to be dome end bypass. Not that I believe that to be a major consideration.
But, for price for construction, efficiency and FoMoCo spec'd, no reason to use the Wix in place the FL820S, imo. 6500 oci should be no issue in a well maintained engine.
Wix 51372 data sheet shows beta 2/20=12/25, 95%@25um, not bad either. Also been shown here recently, in this application the Wix/Napa Gold to be dome end bypass. Not that I believe that to be a major consideration.
But, for price for construction, efficiency and FoMoCo spec'd, no reason to use the Wix in place the FL820S, imo. 6500 oci should be no issue in a well maintained engine.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Stick with the FL820S. Until recently it's efficiency was really unknown. Recent Amsoil testing showed ~94%@20um, fine. BTW, never seen the linked 8 gram MC published spec, but if true that's still a lot of junk.
Wix 51372 data sheet shows beta 2/20=12/25, 95%@25um, not bad either. Also been shown here recently, in this application the Wix/Napa Gold to be dome end bypass. Not that I believe that to be a major consideration.
But, for price for construction, efficiency and FoMoCo spec'd, no reason to use the Wix in place the FL820S, imo. 6500 oci should be no issue in a well maintained engine.
Motorcraft is a quality filter. Use with confidence. I like using the OEM filters (if they are non ecore design.) Makes me feel fuzzy inside
Stick with the FL820S. Until recently it's efficiency was really unknown. Recent Amsoil testing showed ~94%@20um, fine. BTW, never seen the linked 8 gram MC published spec, but if true that's still a lot of junk.
Wix 51372 data sheet shows beta 2/20=12/25, 95%@25um, not bad either. Also been shown here recently, in this application the Wix/Napa Gold to be dome end bypass. Not that I believe that to be a major consideration.
But, for price for construction, efficiency and FoMoCo spec'd, no reason to use the Wix in place the FL820S, imo. 6500 oci should be no issue in a well maintained engine.
Motorcraft is a quality filter. Use with confidence. I like using the OEM filters (if they are non ecore design.) Makes me feel fuzzy inside
If the Wix is cheaper or more easily availible, go ahead and use it. Both are quality filters to be used with confidence.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Wix 51372 data sheet shows beta 2/20=12/25, 95%@25um, not bad either.
Probably not for long ...
If you look at most WIX listings, they are changing all the filters to be beta 2/20=6/20 and nominal of 21um. Many of their filters are being changed to this. It's likely only a matter of time before the change will affect the 51372 as well.
I'll be specific here. I don't believe they are changing the media in all their multitudes of applications. I rather doubht they are manipulating all the media to be the "same" from filter to filter. Rather, I think they are "whitewashing" the public data to read all the same. Either as a matter of convienence, or a matter of keeping folks like us from cherry-picking through their catalog data, trying to find a "better" fitler ....
Look up the 51515, 51516, 51348, etc, etc. Most of them are already chagned over. The 51372 isn't changed - yet ...
For any OEM spec'd applications, I'd find no problems with either the MC or Wix, or a Puralator or other major brands. For the stated intent of 6.5k miles, I don't think any of these brands are going to be maxed out to a point where they'd blind off the media and/or pass horrid amounts of um debris.
Any filter, as it loads with contaminants, will become more efficient at trapping ever smaller particles. In theory, you would want to be able to maximize the efficiency by getting as close as possible to blinding the media, but never quite getting there, just before you OCI.
However, I would challenge anyone to show me conclusive proof in a UOA that we could even be able to tell the difference in actual wear. What often is seen in the lab under tightly controlled circumstances, often does not manifest into real tangible differences in the real world.
The biggest threat by far is soot. And it starts sub-micron in size. The risk is that it will agglomerate (co-join) if untreated. If the oil additive pacakge (dispersents) is in good shape, soot should never get big enought to be caught in a "normal" full-flow filter in the first place. A typical filter is there to catch abnormally large stuff (comparitively speaking). All the small stuff just runs around doing little harm.
Typical contaminants (soot and abrasize metals) are cumulative. You don't get a barrage of them all at once; they amass over time. As long as one changes the oil/filter frequenly enough, you really won't see a significant difference between UOA statistical wear data between brands of oils and filters.
So, that in mind, you can debate and worry about which fitler is "better", but it really won't matter much in the real world, if you OCI with a reasonably normal pattern. In theory, it makes a difference; in the real world, the UOA data shows it's not a big deal.
This debate is no different that which oil is "better". For normal applications and normal OFCIs, it just doesn't matter. Now, if you intend to greatly extend the OCIs, then selecting premium products can make a difference. If you go into a condition that is abnormal, it's possible that a normal product would become overwhelmed, and a premium product would dominate. But that is not the case with 6.5k mile OCIs.
What we have to keep in mind is that what a filter may be capable of, is not the same as what it's asked to do.
If filter A can hold 13 grams of contaminants, and filter B can only hold 8 grams, what does it matter if the OCI plan is only long enough to generate 5 grams? Get the point?
It goes the same for filters as it does for lubes. Under normal conditions, you are not going to find any statistical difference in performance that manifests into actual differences in wear data because there is enough capacity and capability in the aftermarket products to asssure a performance level above the minimum safe requirement.
If you see it otherwise, then I'd ask anyone provide UOA data that clearly shows the manifestation of delta wear performance under these conditions I state. Don't show me some lab test of total capacity or efficiency; that's moot if the filter never gets used to it's end of life and/or if the system is never contaminated to a point where one filter usurps the other.
Wix 51372 data sheet shows beta 2/20=12/25, 95%@25um, not bad either.
Probably not for long ...
If you look at most WIX listings, they are changing all the filters to be beta 2/20=6/20 and nominal of 21um. Many of their filters are being changed to this. It's likely only a matter of time before the change will affect the 51372 as well.
I'll be specific here. I don't believe they are changing the media in all their multitudes of applications. I rather doubht they are manipulating all the media to be the "same" from filter to filter. Rather, I think they are "whitewashing" the public data to read all the same. Either as a matter of convienence, or a matter of keeping folks like us from cherry-picking through their catalog data, trying to find a "better" fitler ....
Look up the 51515, 51516, 51348, etc, etc. Most of them are already chagned over. The 51372 isn't changed - yet ...
For any OEM spec'd applications, I'd find no problems with either the MC or Wix, or a Puralator or other major brands. For the stated intent of 6.5k miles, I don't think any of these brands are going to be maxed out to a point where they'd blind off the media and/or pass horrid amounts of um debris.
Any filter, as it loads with contaminants, will become more efficient at trapping ever smaller particles. In theory, you would want to be able to maximize the efficiency by getting as close as possible to blinding the media, but never quite getting there, just before you OCI.
However, I would challenge anyone to show me conclusive proof in a UOA that we could even be able to tell the difference in actual wear. What often is seen in the lab under tightly controlled circumstances, often does not manifest into real tangible differences in the real world.
The biggest threat by far is soot. And it starts sub-micron in size. The risk is that it will agglomerate (co-join) if untreated. If the oil additive pacakge (dispersents) is in good shape, soot should never get big enought to be caught in a "normal" full-flow filter in the first place. A typical filter is there to catch abnormally large stuff (comparitively speaking). All the small stuff just runs around doing little harm.
Typical contaminants (soot and abrasize metals) are cumulative. You don't get a barrage of them all at once; they amass over time. As long as one changes the oil/filter frequenly enough, you really won't see a significant difference between UOA statistical wear data between brands of oils and filters.
So, that in mind, you can debate and worry about which fitler is "better", but it really won't matter much in the real world, if you OCI with a reasonably normal pattern. In theory, it makes a difference; in the real world, the UOA data shows it's not a big deal.
This debate is no different that which oil is "better". For normal applications and normal OFCIs, it just doesn't matter. Now, if you intend to greatly extend the OCIs, then selecting premium products can make a difference. If you go into a condition that is abnormal, it's possible that a normal product would become overwhelmed, and a premium product would dominate. But that is not the case with 6.5k mile OCIs.
What we have to keep in mind is that what a filter may be capable of, is not the same as what it's asked to do.
If filter A can hold 13 grams of contaminants, and filter B can only hold 8 grams, what does it matter if the OCI plan is only long enough to generate 5 grams? Get the point?
It goes the same for filters as it does for lubes. Under normal conditions, you are not going to find any statistical difference in performance that manifests into actual differences in wear data because there is enough capacity and capability in the aftermarket products to asssure a performance level above the minimum safe requirement.
If you see it otherwise, then I'd ask anyone provide UOA data that clearly shows the manifestation of delta wear performance under these conditions I state. Don't show me some lab test of total capacity or efficiency; that's moot if the filter never gets used to it's end of life and/or if the system is never contaminated to a point where one filter usurps the other.
Last edited:
Note: If used in a 4.6/5.4 type engine it is important to use a filter with the bypass in the thread end. This is so trapped junk does not go up the the cams on bypass. Dont know if the Wix/gold has this or not.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Wix 51372 data sheet shows beta 2/20=12/25, 95%@25um, not bad either.
Probably not for long ...
If you look at most WIX listings, they are changing all the filters to be beta 2/20=6/20 and nominal of 21um. Many of their filters are being changed to this. It's likely only a matter of time before the change will affect the 51372 as well.
Beta 2/20 = 6/20 is a bit better than 2/20 = 12/25.
So that would mean the 51372 would be rated better than it is now if they changed its beta to the new white wash spec.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Wix 51372 data sheet shows beta 2/20=12/25, 95%@25um, not bad either.
Probably not for long ...
If you look at most WIX listings, they are changing all the filters to be beta 2/20=6/20 and nominal of 21um. Many of their filters are being changed to this. It's likely only a matter of time before the change will affect the 51372 as well.
Beta 2/20 = 6/20 is a bit better than 2/20 = 12/25.
So that would mean the 51372 would be rated better than it is now if they changed its beta to the new white wash spec.
- Status
Similar threads
