What's the difference ? Didn't even know that Napa had a better filter than the
Napa Gold. Does anyone know who makes Napa Filters ??
Napa Gold. Does anyone know who makes Napa Filters ??
Napa Gold VS Napa Platinum
- Thread starter BUBBA0420
- Start date
- Status
WIX makes NAPA filters. The Platinum is a full synthetic media, the Gold is not. The NAPA Gold is the same as the basic WIX filter, and the NAPA Platinum is the same as the WIX XP.
As discussed many times now, the XP/Platinum full synthetic filter has a pretty bad filtering efficiency ... only 50% @ 20 microns, while the WIX/NAPA Gold is much better at 95% @ 20 microns.
If you want a good full synthetic media filter for a decent price, go with the FRAM Ultra, as it's efficiency is 99% @ 20 microns and rated to go 15,000 miles.
As discussed many times now, the XP/Platinum full synthetic filter has a pretty bad filtering efficiency ... only 50% @ 20 microns, while the WIX/NAPA Gold is much better at 95% @ 20 microns.
If you want a good full synthetic media filter for a decent price, go with the FRAM Ultra, as it's efficiency is 99% @ 20 microns and rated to go 15,000 miles.
Wix makes one of the best of not the best oil filters on the market today. I know a few mechanics who recommend them.. They also make the carquest filters.. The efficieny rating of the platinum gets better as you go past 10k miles is what I have read. I would run any one of them over any Fram( ultra is good though) depending on your OCI..
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If you want a good full synthetic media filter for a decent price, go with the FRAM Ultra, as it's efficiency is 99% @ 20 microns and rated to go 15,000 miles.
Fram Ultra is rated at 99% efficiency for particles GREATER THAN 20 microns.
If you want a good full synthetic media filter for a decent price, go with the FRAM Ultra, as it's efficiency is 99% @ 20 microns and rated to go 15,000 miles.
Fram Ultra is rated at 99% efficiency for particles GREATER THAN 20 microns.
Originally Posted By: MNL
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If you want a good full synthetic media filter for a decent price, go with the FRAM Ultra, as it's efficiency is 99% @ 20 microns and rated to go 15,000 miles.
Fram Ultra is rated at 99% efficiency for particles GREATER THAN 20 microns.
Well, a particle that is 20.001 microns is size IS >20 microns.
Member Motorking here says their ">20 microns" statement means @20 microns and larger. So saying "@20 microns" is technically correct also.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If you want a good full synthetic media filter for a decent price, go with the FRAM Ultra, as it's efficiency is 99% @ 20 microns and rated to go 15,000 miles.
Fram Ultra is rated at 99% efficiency for particles GREATER THAN 20 microns.
Well, a particle that is 20.001 microns is size IS >20 microns.
Member Motorking here says their ">20 microns" statement means @20 microns and larger. So saying "@20 microns" is technically correct also.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Well, a particle that is 20.001 microns is size IS >20 microns.
Member Motorking here says their ">20 microns" statement means @20 microns and larger. So saying "@20 microns" is technically correct also.
From a marking standpoint, >20 is equivalent to claiming "up to 99%". For example, if a cleaning product kills only 56% of germs for a user, the product still preformed to spec with a claim of UP TO 99%. In the case of Fram, they state to have a 99% efficiency for particles >20 microns. For you and me, it could mean 20.001 micros. For Fram, it could mean 40 micros. Even if the filter only catch pebbles and let everything less than 40 microns through, it still fall within the ">20 microns" as advertised. If Fram claims to have a 99% efficiency for everything from 20 microns and bigger, why not use a "equal and greater than" (≥) symbol?
Well, a particle that is 20.001 microns is size IS >20 microns.
Member Motorking here says their ">20 microns" statement means @20 microns and larger. So saying "@20 microns" is technically correct also.
From a marking standpoint, >20 is equivalent to claiming "up to 99%". For example, if a cleaning product kills only 56% of germs for a user, the product still preformed to spec with a claim of UP TO 99%. In the case of Fram, they state to have a 99% efficiency for particles >20 microns. For you and me, it could mean 20.001 micros. For Fram, it could mean 40 micros. Even if the filter only catch pebbles and let everything less than 40 microns through, it still fall within the ">20 microns" as advertised. If Fram claims to have a 99% efficiency for everything from 20 microns and bigger, why not use a "equal and greater than" (≥) symbol?
Originally Posted By: MNL
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Well, a particle that is 20.001 microns is size IS >20 microns.
Member Motorking here says their ">20 microns" statement means @20 microns and larger. So saying "@20 microns" is technically correct also.
In the case of Fram, they state to have a 99% efficiency for particles >20 microns. For you and me, it could mean 20.001 micros. For Fram, it could mean 40 micros. Even if the filter only catch pebbles and let everything less than 40 microns through, it still fall within the ">20 microns" as advertised. If Fram claims to have a 99% efficiency for everything from 20 microns and bigger, why not use a "equal and greater than" (≥) symbol?
What you said in red just isn't logical or true. This is why - because if everything between 20 and 40 microns went through at less than 99% efficiency, then they couldn't use the "99% efficient for particles >20 microns" specification because every particle between 20.01 and 40 microns is not >40 microns - they are less. Fram could literally get sued for false advertising by other filter manufacturers and anyone else that cares and proved they lied. Easy to do for other filter manufacturers, because all they have to do is buy some Fram Ultra filters and run the ISO tests in their own laboratory to confirm Fram is truthful in there advertised efficiency spec. I highly doubt Fram's legal department is that stupid to put themselves into a false advertising lawsuit.
When Fram says "99% efficient for particles >20 microns" they essentially mean any particle that is greater than 20 microns will be filtered at 99% efficiency, period. That means everything 20.01 microns and above.
And yes, I've asked Motorking a couple of times why they (Fram) don't say "20 microns and above" instead of using the ">20" symbol. I don't think he ever saw my post, as he doesn't hang out here much at all, only pops in now and then.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Well, a particle that is 20.001 microns is size IS >20 microns.
Member Motorking here says their ">20 microns" statement means @20 microns and larger. So saying "@20 microns" is technically correct also.
In the case of Fram, they state to have a 99% efficiency for particles >20 microns. For you and me, it could mean 20.001 micros. For Fram, it could mean 40 micros. Even if the filter only catch pebbles and let everything less than 40 microns through, it still fall within the ">20 microns" as advertised. If Fram claims to have a 99% efficiency for everything from 20 microns and bigger, why not use a "equal and greater than" (≥) symbol?
What you said in red just isn't logical or true. This is why - because if everything between 20 and 40 microns went through at less than 99% efficiency, then they couldn't use the "99% efficient for particles >20 microns" specification because every particle between 20.01 and 40 microns is not >40 microns - they are less. Fram could literally get sued for false advertising by other filter manufacturers and anyone else that cares and proved they lied. Easy to do for other filter manufacturers, because all they have to do is buy some Fram Ultra filters and run the ISO tests in their own laboratory to confirm Fram is truthful in there advertised efficiency spec. I highly doubt Fram's legal department is that stupid to put themselves into a false advertising lawsuit.
When Fram says "99% efficient for particles >20 microns" they essentially mean any particle that is greater than 20 microns will be filtered at 99% efficiency, period. That means everything 20.01 microns and above.
And yes, I've asked Motorking a couple of times why they (Fram) don't say "20 microns and above" instead of using the ">20" symbol. I don't think he ever saw my post, as he doesn't hang out here much at all, only pops in now and then.
dnewton3
Staff member
I would be in agreement with Zee here.
This is silly nit-picking by folks who don't actually understand the ISO 4548-12 testing protocol. Purchase and read the actual testing methodology; don't browse some synopsis and think you understand. I'm not saying this to be rude, but many folks won't pay for ISO, ASTM, ASME, SAE documentation to get the detailed accounts, as they can be expensive. But they are willing to read a third-hand regurgitated synopsis and think they "get it". Well, they typically don't. One EXCELLENT example of misunderstood info is the infamous GM filter study from long ago. Don't get me started; it boils my oil to no end to hear folks espouse conclusions when they have not read the full study ...
Much of this consternation regarding the Fram spec is because a combination of lawyers and marketing folks end up writing sales brochure (website) data, rather than engineers .... That is why there's debate over the concept of "equal to" or "greater than" 20um.
But Zee is right; ANY particle greater than 20um will be captured at the stated efficieny, period, regardless of pebble, rock or boulder size. The stated efficiency is not rated at a minimum size that is caught; it's a max size that passes. Therefore any particle above that size will be caught with that rated efficiency. Given the debate nuance, what we're really discussing is whether or not a particle that is E-X-A-C-T-L-Y 20um in size would be caught or not. Any particle greater than 20um (anything 20.0000000000000001 or bigger) is included in the Fram Statement. So MNL, you're really tying to decide if the 20.0000000000000 particle is "included" in the efficiency rating. I, for one, really could not give any less of a manure load if that EVER-S0-SLIGHTLY-SMALLER particle passes or not.
Leave it be - it's not worth worrying over.
This is silly nit-picking by folks who don't actually understand the ISO 4548-12 testing protocol. Purchase and read the actual testing methodology; don't browse some synopsis and think you understand. I'm not saying this to be rude, but many folks won't pay for ISO, ASTM, ASME, SAE documentation to get the detailed accounts, as they can be expensive. But they are willing to read a third-hand regurgitated synopsis and think they "get it". Well, they typically don't. One EXCELLENT example of misunderstood info is the infamous GM filter study from long ago. Don't get me started; it boils my oil to no end to hear folks espouse conclusions when they have not read the full study ...
Much of this consternation regarding the Fram spec is because a combination of lawyers and marketing folks end up writing sales brochure (website) data, rather than engineers .... That is why there's debate over the concept of "equal to" or "greater than" 20um.
But Zee is right; ANY particle greater than 20um will be captured at the stated efficieny, period, regardless of pebble, rock or boulder size. The stated efficiency is not rated at a minimum size that is caught; it's a max size that passes. Therefore any particle above that size will be caught with that rated efficiency. Given the debate nuance, what we're really discussing is whether or not a particle that is E-X-A-C-T-L-Y 20um in size would be caught or not. Any particle greater than 20um (anything 20.0000000000000001 or bigger) is included in the Fram Statement. So MNL, you're really tying to decide if the 20.0000000000000 particle is "included" in the efficiency rating. I, for one, really could not give any less of a manure load if that EVER-S0-SLIGHTLY-SMALLER particle passes or not.
Leave it be - it's not worth worrying over.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MNL
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Well, a particle that is 20.001 microns is size IS >20 microns.
Member Motorking here says their ">20 microns" statement means @20 microns and larger. So saying "@20 microns" is technically correct also.
From a marking standpoint, >20 is equivalent to claiming "up to 99%". For example, if a cleaning product kills only 56% of germs for a user, the product still preformed to spec with a claim of UP TO 99%. In the case of Fram, they state to have a 99% efficiency for particles >20 microns. For you and me, it could mean 20.001 micros. For Fram, it could mean 40 micros. Even if the filter only catch pebbles and let everything less than 40 microns through, it still fall within the ">20 microns" as advertised. If Fram claims to have a 99% efficiency for everything from 20 microns and bigger, why not use a "equal and greater than" (≥) symbol?
Woah, you are really twisting words here.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Well, a particle that is 20.001 microns is size IS >20 microns.
Member Motorking here says their ">20 microns" statement means @20 microns and larger. So saying "@20 microns" is technically correct also.
From a marking standpoint, >20 is equivalent to claiming "up to 99%". For example, if a cleaning product kills only 56% of germs for a user, the product still preformed to spec with a claim of UP TO 99%. In the case of Fram, they state to have a 99% efficiency for particles >20 microns. For you and me, it could mean 20.001 micros. For Fram, it could mean 40 micros. Even if the filter only catch pebbles and let everything less than 40 microns through, it still fall within the ">20 microns" as advertised. If Fram claims to have a 99% efficiency for everything from 20 microns and bigger, why not use a "equal and greater than" (≥) symbol?
Woah, you are really twisting words here.
I'm suggesting that because Fram clams a "XX% efficiently for >20 microns", we as users in BITOG should stick to that when addressing it. What I was posting was from a "marketing standpoint" (which I misspelled in the original post and must have misunderstand). I was stating an example of how the use of a ">" can be misinterpreted from an advertising point of view. However, I'll give Fram this, at least they publish some form of efficiently rating (I'm talking to you WIX) and they got rid of the "3x/6x more protection" stuff on the box.
Let's throw ALL that asides, hug it out and return back to OP's original post.
As ZeeOSix pointed out, the Platinum is a full synthetic oil filter. WIX is the manufacturer of Napa's line of oil filter and all version of the filter are well built. Napa Gold usually come with a base end by-pass valve and silicon ADBV. The NAPA Platinum retains all that feature of the Gold but it's build with a synthetic media. However, it drop the fancy base end by-pass valve in favor for a dome-end by-pass valve like the Napa Silver.
The breakdown:
Napa Silver, Carquest Red, Pro-Tec and Microgard are the "everyday, traditional oil change filters".
Napa Gold, Carquest Blue and standard WIX are the "OE equivalent" filter. Great filtration for OE drain.
Napa Platinum, AMSOIL Ea and Wix XP are filters design for "extended drain, pushing 10K+ miles"
Napa this month has a $5 instant rebate on the Platinum oil filter and I picked one up for $8. Purolator Synthetic, Pennzoil Platinum HE, Royal Purple, Mobil 1 Extended and Fram Ultra are other comparable synthetic oil filters that can be had for $9-15.
Let's throw ALL that asides, hug it out and return back to OP's original post.
As ZeeOSix pointed out, the Platinum is a full synthetic oil filter. WIX is the manufacturer of Napa's line of oil filter and all version of the filter are well built. Napa Gold usually come with a base end by-pass valve and silicon ADBV. The NAPA Platinum retains all that feature of the Gold but it's build with a synthetic media. However, it drop the fancy base end by-pass valve in favor for a dome-end by-pass valve like the Napa Silver.
The breakdown:
Napa Silver, Carquest Red, Pro-Tec and Microgard are the "everyday, traditional oil change filters".
Napa Gold, Carquest Blue and standard WIX are the "OE equivalent" filter. Great filtration for OE drain.
Napa Platinum, AMSOIL Ea and Wix XP are filters design for "extended drain, pushing 10K+ miles"
Napa this month has a $5 instant rebate on the Platinum oil filter and I picked one up for $8. Purolator Synthetic, Pennzoil Platinum HE, Royal Purple, Mobil 1 Extended and Fram Ultra are other comparable synthetic oil filters that can be had for $9-15.
Based on Wix's efficiency rating of the XP (and hence the NAPA Platinum), which is 50% @ 20 microns, I'd much rather use the Fram Ultra which blows the XP and Platinum out of the water on efficiency and extended use of up to 15K miles.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Based on Wix's efficiency rating of the XP (and hence the NAPA Platinum), which is 50% @ 20 microns, I'd much rather use the Fram Ultra which blows the XP and Platinum out of the water on efficiency and extended use of up to 15K miles.
I kinda thought the Napa Platinum was on par with Asmoil EA oil filter which they state to have an efficiency of 98.7% percent at 20 microns. However, knowing Napa, it's probability built similar to the less expensive WIX XP. I e-mailed NAPA and see if I get a respond this week about the Platinum's Max OCI and efficiency.
Based on Wix's efficiency rating of the XP (and hence the NAPA Platinum), which is 50% @ 20 microns, I'd much rather use the Fram Ultra which blows the XP and Platinum out of the water on efficiency and extended use of up to 15K miles.
I kinda thought the Napa Platinum was on par with Asmoil EA oil filter which they state to have an efficiency of 98.7% percent at 20 microns. However, knowing Napa, it's probability built similar to the less expensive WIX XP. I e-mailed NAPA and see if I get a respond this week about the Platinum's Max OCI and efficiency.
I was roaming the web and found this about the WIX XP.
Quote:
Wix XP Oil Filter Laboratory Test Performance per ISO-4548-12:
32 grams dirt* - up to 100% more than Wix -
99% efficient at 35 microns**
(Based on *51515XP - **51356XP, 57060XP)
http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail...angeSearch=true
Seem like WIX XP focus more on long drain and filtration capacity which is more than Purolator Synthetic's 27 gram. (What was the Ultra's capacity?) The Napa Platinum and WIX XP are painted (or powercoated) the same black color. They just slap on a shiny silver sticker on the Platinum.
Quote:
Wix XP Oil Filter Laboratory Test Performance per ISO-4548-12:
32 grams dirt* - up to 100% more than Wix -
99% efficient at 35 microns**
(Based on *51515XP - **51356XP, 57060XP)
http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail...angeSearch=true
Seem like WIX XP focus more on long drain and filtration capacity which is more than Purolator Synthetic's 27 gram. (What was the Ultra's capacity?) The Napa Platinum and WIX XP are painted (or powercoated) the same black color. They just slap on a shiny silver sticker on the Platinum.
Originally Posted By: MNL
I was roaming the web and found this about the WIX XP.
Quote:
Wix XP Oil Filter Laboratory Test Performance per ISO-4548-12:
32 grams dirt* - up to 100% more than Wix -
99% efficient at 35 microns**
(Based on *51515XP - **51356XP, 57060XP)
http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail...angeSearch=true
Seem like WIX XP focus more on long drain and filtration capacity which is more than Purolator Synthetic's 27 gram. (What was the Ultra's capacity?) The Napa Platinum and WIX XP are painted (or powercoated) the same black color. They just slap on a shiny silver sticker on the Platinum.
Not sure how accurate the stated O'Reilly's efficiency data is about the WIX XP since more than one member here has called the WIX Tech Line and they where all told the same thing, that the WIX XP has a 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
Maybe 99% @ 35 microns equates to 50% @ 20 microns ... seems about the right level of scaling.
I was roaming the web and found this about the WIX XP.
Quote:
Wix XP Oil Filter Laboratory Test Performance per ISO-4548-12:
32 grams dirt* - up to 100% more than Wix -
99% efficient at 35 microns**
(Based on *51515XP - **51356XP, 57060XP)
http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail...angeSearch=true
Seem like WIX XP focus more on long drain and filtration capacity which is more than Purolator Synthetic's 27 gram. (What was the Ultra's capacity?) The Napa Platinum and WIX XP are painted (or powercoated) the same black color. They just slap on a shiny silver sticker on the Platinum.
Not sure how accurate the stated O'Reilly's efficiency data is about the WIX XP since more than one member here has called the WIX Tech Line and they where all told the same thing, that the WIX XP has a 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
Maybe 99% @ 35 microns equates to 50% @ 20 microns ... seems about the right level of scaling.
I use the Napa Plat (same as xp) should I be worried about that filtration rate? Thanks
Originally Posted By: MNL
I'm suggesting that because Fram clams a "XX% efficiently for >20 microns", we as users in BITOG should stick to that when addressing it. What I was posting was from a "marketing standpoint" (which I misspelled in the original post and must have misunderstand). I was stating an example of how the use of a ">" can be misinterpreted from an advertising point of view. However, I'll give Fram this, at least they publish some form of efficiently rating (I'm talking to you WIX) and they got rid of the "3x/6x more protection" stuff on the box.
Just wanted to throw in another perspective on this. One reason Fram may use the "xx% efficient for particulars >20 microns" is because they are trying to express the efficiency specification to people who are not that familiar with oil filters specs.
If they used "xx% efficient @ 20 microns", people may think it's ONLY at 20 microns and be confused about the efficiency at other sizes of particles. Therefore, they use ">20 microns" in their spec to show it's xx% efficient for all particles above 20 microns - which would technically include particles approaching 20 microns (ie, 20.001 microns).
Of course the most accurate way to say it would be "xx% efficient for particular 20 microns and larger".
I'm suggesting that because Fram clams a "XX% efficiently for >20 microns", we as users in BITOG should stick to that when addressing it. What I was posting was from a "marketing standpoint" (which I misspelled in the original post and must have misunderstand). I was stating an example of how the use of a ">" can be misinterpreted from an advertising point of view. However, I'll give Fram this, at least they publish some form of efficiently rating (I'm talking to you WIX) and they got rid of the "3x/6x more protection" stuff on the box.
Just wanted to throw in another perspective on this. One reason Fram may use the "xx% efficient for particulars >20 microns" is because they are trying to express the efficiency specification to people who are not that familiar with oil filters specs.
If they used "xx% efficient @ 20 microns", people may think it's ONLY at 20 microns and be confused about the efficiency at other sizes of particles. Therefore, they use ">20 microns" in their spec to show it's xx% efficient for all particles above 20 microns - which would technically include particles approaching 20 microns (ie, 20.001 microns).
Of course the most accurate way to say it would be "xx% efficient for particular 20 microns and larger".
Originally Posted By: asharris7
I use the Napa Plat (same as xp) should I be worried about that filtration rate? Thanks
Guess it depends on long you run the filter. WIX claims the filter is designed for long OCIs, and that's probably why it's efficiency isn't stellar.
Honda and Toyota OEM oil filters have about the same efficiency rating (50% @ 20 microns).
I use the Napa Plat (same as xp) should I be worried about that filtration rate? Thanks
Guess it depends on long you run the filter. WIX claims the filter is designed for long OCIs, and that's probably why it's efficiency isn't stellar.
Honda and Toyota OEM oil filters have about the same efficiency rating (50% @ 20 microns).
I usually only run the filter around 5-6k. might be overkill for my short OCI. VCM engine is rough on oil. Seems like Honda and Toyota are only concerned about flow vs filtration.
- Status
