Wix effiency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
11,465
Location
Virginia




What is the real effiency of the Wix XP filters?? On the O Reilly's website it clearly states 99% @ 35 microns. I am curious as to what is the answer here.

Ohh and the beef ribs turned out quite tasty.
 
I think it would only be ethical for all manufacturers to print the % and the micron size right on their package. They are playing that old numbers game with us again.
 
Depending on the shape of the efficiency curve, it could translate to 99% at 35 microns. Last time I and others here called WIX Tech support they were saying 50% at 20 microns. They probably changed it to 99% from 50% because people who don't understand filter efficiency ratings see "99%" and think it's great.

Call WIX and see what they say now.
 
Yeah that what I thought as well. It was 50% @ 20 microns. That would be a steep curve if it went from 99% at 35 down to 50% at 20. I would expect it to be in the mid to upper 80% range at 20.
 
You wana hear my 2cents, finding best full flow is important to point but if you go Wix xp, royal purple, fram xg, Amsoil you cant go wrong but if you worried about filter efficiency your looking at wrong filters. You should really consider bypass filter setup that will get you to the micron efficiency you want.
 
Since it appears that oil companies jump through a lot of hoops to get their oil approved for warranties why are oil filters such a mystery? Couldn't the API create a certification process just for oil filters and then print it on the box?
 
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Since it appears that oil companies jump through a lot of hoops to get their oil approved for warranties why are oil filters such a mystery? Couldn't the API create a certification process just for oil filters and then print it on the box?


They aren't going to do it unless the customer demands it. Someone needs to hold their feet to the fire.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
35 microns is good enough for me. The width of a human hair is 40 microns.


Every so often you have a post that makes sense.
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
35 microns is good enough for me. The width of a human hair is 40 microns.


Every so often you have a post that makes sense.


+1

LOL
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
35 microns is good enough for me. The width of a human hair is 40 microns.

It's not very good in terms of filtering the majority of the particles that do the most wear - particles below 20 microns. Been some long threads recenty about that subject.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
35 microns is good enough for me. The width of a human hair is 40 microns.

It's not very good in terms of filtering the majority of the particles that do the most wear - particles below 20 microns. Been some long threads recenty about that subject.


Precisely and directly to the point and the real issue.
 
What would a filter like a Trasko do? Would such a filter be more popular if people knew what they were getting with a replaceable filter?
 
I'd use any of those filters, even a NAPA Gold. To me the air filter is much more important.
cheers3.gif
 
Very true indeed. Speaking of which the Purolator One air filter I just put in fit really well. The media had a reason on it I think as well. I am very pleased with that form of Purolator.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It's not very good in terms of filtering the majority of the particles that do the most wear - particles below 20 microns. Been some long threads recenty about that subject.


Anything smaller than 35 microns is going to get surrounded and isolated by the oil molecules.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It's not very good in terms of filtering the majority of the particles that do the most wear - particles below 20 microns. Been some long threads recenty about that subject.

Anything smaller than 35 microns is going to get surrounded and isolated by the oil molecules.

Yeah, "isolated by the oil" and carried between engine components. Guess you didn't read all the wear vs particle size threads and the various links, etc. Every paper done about wear vs particle size says particles below 20 microns do the most wear because of thier size vs the oil film thickness between engine components.
 
Wix does list beta ratios for some of their filters.

The beta ratio is an ISO standard test.
http://machinerylubrication.com/Read/564/filter-beta-ratios

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/Exactmatch.aspx?PartNo=57356XP

The 57356 with the Cellulose media shows a beta ratio of 2/20=6/20 that would be 50% efficient at 6 microns, 95% efficient at 20 microns.
The 57356 with the synthetic media does not show a beta ratio.
Both show an OEM part number of 57356XP but the WIX part number is 57356 for celllose and 57356XP for the synthetic.

Some companies that show beta ratios specify the ratio based on a specific model filter that may be different than the one you use.
Mobil 1 filters specify the testing was done on a specific model filter, you can call the Mobil 1 filter hotline and ask for the efficiency of your specific filter.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It's not very good in terms of filtering the majority of the particles that do the most wear - particles below 20 microns. Been some long threads recenty about that subject.

Anything smaller than 35 microns is going to get surrounded and isolated by the oil molecules.

Yeah, "isolated by the oil" and carried between engine components. Guess you didn't read all the wear vs particle size threads and the various links, etc. Every paper done about wear vs particle size says particles below 20 microns do the most wear because of thier size vs the oil film thickness between engine components.
Ive seen main bearing design clearances below 25 microns on some common Japanese engines. Effective running clearance is less than 1/2 of then design clearance.
That's ALL I'm saying ...
 
[/quote]
Yeah, "isolated by the oil" and carried between engine components. Guess you didn't read all the wear vs particle size threads and the various links, etc. Every paper done about wear vs particle size says particles below 20 microns do the most wear because of thier size vs the oil film thickness between engine components. [/quote] Ive seen main bearing design clearances below 25 microns on some common Japanese engines. Effective running clearance is less than 1/2 of then design clearance.
That's ALL I'm saying ...[/quote]

Then there is expansion and contraction of differing metals that changes the clearances. At zero degrees and 240 degrees F the parts are not expanding and contracting equally. Clearances change. The crankshaft is iron, the bearings are not. The block may be aluminum, the crank is not. There is taper, roundness, and finish of the crank journals, never are they perfect. The crank flexes microns even under gravity. Then there is flex under differing operating loads. There is assembly of bearing shells to a block or connecting rod, dirt free perfection to a few microns in a clean room it's not.

I wouldn't buy any Wix product if they are lying about the XP being their best filter, and for the hardest uses. Dirtier oil for hard use would be the worst thing. They say the XP is their best. I don't think they are lying. I would buy their products. People may get wrapped up in the multi pass test numbers too much. It's almost a disease.
laugh.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top