Wix VS Wix XP

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
There isn't any proof Toyota filters are 51% efficient @ 20 microns in the multi pass, (too fast), test. Someone said it was so over six years ago, and drew a picture.

Microgreen said their filter was super efficient down to 2 microns without documentation, yet some people believe it because they "said so".

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
There is documented proof from an independent party on their letterhead a Toyota copy filter was superior in particle filtration to a Fram Ultra. In a real world test, on a car that puts particles into the oil. People believe the no proof Toyota claim and it becomes a rumor, then becomes a reference.

There was also documented proof posted on this board that an Ultra made a UOA ISO cleanliness particle count in a motorcycle with a wet clutch and shared transmission cleaner than the same new oil used in the bike.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
My unpopular theory is cellulose, wood cells, filters finer over time than any all synthetic full flow filter. Filters combining wood cells and synthetic fibers is the best combo, in my unpopular opinion.

Technical articles by makers of full synthetic media say just the opposite, as does efficiency test data.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
There isn't any proof Toyota filters are 51% efficient @ 20 microns in the multi pass, (too fast), test. Someone said it was so over six years ago, and drew a picture.

Microgreen said their filter was super efficient down to 2 microns without documentation, yet some people believe it because they "said so".

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
There is documented proof from an independent party on their letterhead a Toyota copy filter was superior in particle filtration to a Fram Ultra. In a real world test, on a car that puts particles into the oil. People believe the no proof Toyota claim and it becomes a rumor, then becomes a reference.

There was also documented proof posted on this board that an Ultra made a UOA ISO cleanliness particle count in a motorcycle with a wet clutch and shared transmission cleaner than the same new oil used in the bike.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
My unpopular theory is cellulose, wood cells, filters finer over time than any all synthetic full flow filter. Filters combining wood cells and synthetic fibers is the best combo, in my unpopular opinion.

Technical articles by makers of full synthetic media say just the opposite, as does efficiency test data.


Motorcycle test does not invalidate or change Toyota copy filter beating Ultra in actual particle removal. Someone also tried to say a motorcycle Ultra using clean oil beat a Frantz that cleaned dirty diesel engine oil. Not going to fly.
MG disk info is a spec, a micron number, not part of an efficiency. Bypass filters not tested on multi pass test. Pore size is like an engine weight, do they need to show you the engine on a scale before you believe how much it weighs? Of course you don't. They don't need to prove it. One MG patent that shows they didn't make up the MG filter arbitrarily:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7048848.PN.&OS=PN/7048848&RS=PN/7048848

Find a technical article from a synthetic fiber maker that shows cells from plants filter worse than strands of man made fibers stuck together. Efficiency test data not applicable to slow filtration like I described for cellulose. That's my whole point. Pictures of even synthetic strands next to random cellulose strands is not applicable. The wood cells are in the cellulose strands. Synthetic fibers absorb nothing into them, everything slips by. You skate around what I say.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Motorcycle test does not invalidate or change Toyota copy filter beating Ultra in actual particle removal.

It "flys" just as good as your claims. Same kind of "documented proof from an independent party". So which one is really accurate? In fact, you might want to dig up the thread you keep referencing because it might not even have been an ISO particle count test, only a Blackstone UOA which isn't the same thing.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
MG disk info is a spec, a micron number, not part of an efficiency./

It's a "claim" on the 2 micron filtering ability with no official test data to back up the "claim".

Find a technical article from a synthetic fiber maker that shows cells from plants filter worse than strands of man made fibers stuck together.

Don't you know how to use Google? There's TONS of info saying full synthetic is better in many ways.
LINK 1

LINK 2

See pages 68 & 69
LINK 3

Lots more ...
https://www.google.com/search?q=full+synthetic+oil+filter+media+PDF

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Efficiency test data not applicable to slow filtration like I described for cellulose.

Prove it with some official technical links. If the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test wasn't good at comparing different oil filter efficiency then it wouldn't have been approved by an international testing organization (ISO) and used for the last 17 years. IMO, if it rates low in efficiency per ISO 4548-12 then it's not going to magically be the most efficient oil filter out in real life. I have never found any papers, etc that prove that's true, so If you're making that claim then there must be some test data somewhere showing that's the case - so post up the links.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
That's my whole point. Pictures of even synthetic strands next to random cellulose strands is not applicable. The wood cells are in the cellulose strands. Synthetic fibers absorb nothing into them, everything slips by. You skate around what I say.

I'm not "skating around what you say" ... I'm saying you're wrong and you have nothing to back up your claims. The ability to absorb a bit of water isn't the main goal of an oil filter ... capturing abrasive particles is.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Motorcycle test does not invalidate or change Toyota copy filter beating Ultra in actual particle removal.

It "flys" just as good as your claims. Same kind of "documented proof from an independent party". So which one is really accurate? In fact, you might want to dig up the thread you keep referencing because it might not even have been an ISO particle count test, only a Blackstone UOA which isn't the same thing.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
MG disk info is a spec, a micron number, not part of an efficiency./
Quote:

It's a "claim" on the 2 micron filtering ability with no official test data to back up the "claim".

Find a technical article from a synthetic fiber maker that shows cells from plants filter worse than strands of man made fibers stuck together.

Don't you know how to use Google? There's TONS of info saying full synthetic is better in many ways.
LINK 1

LINK 2

See pages 68 & 69
LINK 3

Lots more ...
https://www.google.com/search?q=full+synthetic+oil+filter+media+PDF

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Efficiency test data not applicable to slow filtration like I described for cellulose.

Prove it with some official technical links. If the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test wasn't good at comparing different oil filter efficiency then it wouldn't have been approved by an international testing organization (ISO) and used for the last 17 years. IMO, if it rates low in efficiency per ISO 4548-12 then it's not going to magically be the most efficient oil filter out in real life. I have never found any papers, etc that prove that's true, so If you're making that claim then there must be some test data somewhere showing that's the case - so post up the links.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
That's my whole point. Pictures of even synthetic strands next to random cellulose strands is not applicable. The wood cells are in the cellulose strands. Synthetic fibers absorb nothing into them, everything slips by. You skate around what I say.

I'm not "skating around what you say" ... I'm saying you're wrong and you have nothing to back up your claims. The ability to absorb a bit of water isn't the main goal of an oil filter ... capturing abrasive particles is.


The test was an additional particle count test. Nothing you can say will change the fact an Ultra didn't filter as well as a Toyota copy filter in the real world.

The multi pass test is done on full flow oil filters. That's why the question where is MG's efficiency test is not applicable. Bypass filters seem to always say a micron rating. The MG disk is a bypass filter.

You're skating around what I say. Cells in wood are excellent filters. They filter nutrients, molecules, from the soil. I haven't seen any article saying synthetic strands in a full flow auto oil filter can filter finer than cells of wood. I think a blend is the best. I don't extend my filter intervals. What I am saying is not complicated, and not something to get a heart attack over. Maybe read about botany. I'm sorry if a weed growing by the side of the road has more complexity in it than anything man has ever made.

"don't you know how to use Google." :

Happy New Year.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The test was an additional particle count test. Nothing you can say will change the fact an Ultra didn't filter as well as a Toyota copy filter in the real world.

So was the motorcycle ISO particle count using an Ultra that showed the used oil was cleaner than the new oil in the bottle. Just as believable as your data point.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You're skating around what I say. Cells in wood are excellent filters. They filter nutrients, molecules, from the soil. I haven't seen any article saying synthetic strands in a full flow auto oil filter can filter finer than cells of wood.

What?

... guess you didn't read any of the links I put up, as usual. Like I said, there is TONS of info you can find that say full synthetic is much better than cellulose. Yet, you can't find and link up a few articles that say otherwise. Go figure ...

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I think a blend is the best. I don't extend my filter intervals. What I am saying is not complicated, and not something to get a heart attack over. Maybe read about botany. I'm sorry if a weed growing by the side of the road has more complexity in it than anything man has ever made.

Yeah, I think some kind of "weed" is involved.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
"don't you know how to use Google." :

Happy New Year.

You might want to make using Google more proficiently one of your 2018 New Years resolution.

Happy New Year too.

 

[MParr]

This thread has gotten way out of hand.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MParr
This thread has gotten way out of hand.


Not really, because the regular WIX is cellulose media and the XP is full synthetic and that's how this discussion of cellulose vs synthetic media has become what it is.

It just so happens that in the case of the WIX filers, the full synthetic is less efficient than the cellulose ... but that is not the typical norm.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
There is documented proof from an independent party on their letterhead a Toyota copy filter was superior in particle filtration to a Fram Ultra.


BTW, that filter was NOT a true Toyota filter ... it was a "copy". Therefore, nobody really knows anything about the guts inside that oil filter. For all we know, it could be full synthetic too.

Also, here's the thread about the filter making the used motorcycle oil (5K miles on oil) cleaner than the new oil in the bottle. It was actually a Fram TG, not an Ultra - still 99% @ 20 microns efficiency ... LINK

New Oil
4 mic 29178
6 mic 9931
14 mic 497
21 mic 131
38 mic 16
70 mic 6
ISO 22/20/16

Used Oil
4 mic 13238
6 mic 89
14 mic 6
21 mic 3
38 mic 1
70 mic 1
ISO 21/14/10

 

[MParr]

It’s gotten out of hand because, other brands of filter are being brought into the discussion. Want a Toyota filter discussion, start one. A Champ filter discussion, start one. FRAM filter discussion, start one. ETC.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Ok … I use XG’s mainly but probably a design best suited for spin on … my only cartridge are Hengst …


Somewhat the same here.

'Yoda for the Toyota and Mahle, Mann etc. for the Volvo. That's about it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MParr
It’s gotten out of hand because, other brands of filter are being brought into the discussion. Want a Toyota filter discussion, start one. A Champ filter discussion, start one. FRAM filter discussion, start one. ETC.


Typical chat board stuff ... show me more threads that stall purely 100% on topic that don't. At least it's still oil filter discussion.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: MParr
It’s gotten out of hand because, other brands of filter are being brought into the discussion. Want a Toyota filter discussion, start one. A Champ filter discussion, start one. FRAM filter discussion, start one. ETC.


Typical chat board stuff ... show me more threads that stall purely 100% on topic that don't. At least it's still oil filter discussion.

Precisely if you want to come on a forum that's going to happen. Don't get those big boy panties in a wad up your crack!
Not speaking of you ZeeOSix.

 

[bbhero]

Not trying to give ya a hard time here Zee0six

But just in case you didn't know but some of the regular Wix filters are now made with "Enhanced cellulose". Including the one that fits my 3.5 VQ the 57356 and 51358.

Which I am thinking means it has some synthetic fibers mixed in with it now.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: MParr
It’s gotten out of hand because, other brands of filter are being brought into the discussion. Want a Toyota filter discussion, start one. A Champ filter discussion, start one. FRAM filter discussion, start one. ETC.


There's oodles of junk posted previously to you and you have the audacity to say me bringing up a Toyota filters efficiency is causing this thread to get out of hand? Please, restore my faith in humanity and say I am misinterpreting you...

 

[MParr]

Yep, I was aware of that. I wonder if WIX quality will take a hit with the Mann+Hummel buyout?

 

[dlundblad]

I am surprised Z06's heavy machinery/ heavy dust paper hasn't been brought into this thread yet personally.


"Yeah uh guys, your Corolla needs the same filter treatment as a D7 used to put in a shopping mall in Phoenix Arizona."

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: MParr
Yep, I was aware of that. I wonder if WIX quality will take a hit with the Mann+Hummel buyout?


Want a thread about M+H, start a new thread!

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I think a blend is the best. I don't extend my filter intervals. What I am saying is not complicated, and not something to get a heart attack over. Maybe read about botany. I'm sorry if a weed growing by the side of the road has more complexity in it than anything man has ever made.
Yeah, I think some kind of "weed" is involved.

 

[MParr]

I must have struck a nerve or three.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: MParr
This thread has gotten way out of hand.


I agree. Way out of hand, because I said I like a blend oil filter better than full synthetic. Such a big crime. I will still think what I want to think. Bully or no bully, it's still a free country to speak and think what you believe. I don't get bullied. The funny part, it is about oil filters. This will be the last of it, after he comments I am wrong. Not happening again.