[Cut Open] Wix 57356XP - Virgin - M+H

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,520
Location
Scruffy City
57356XP1.jpg


57356XP2.jpg


57356XP3.jpg


57356XP4.jpg


57356XP5.jpg
 
The quality of the build is impressive. The filtering not so much!

Many people enjoy mocking Fram for the OCOD, yet Fram makes one of the best oil filters on the market (efficiency rating context), aside from the price.





Respectfully,

Pajero!
 
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
There's some rust on the base plate. What is the date code on top of the can?
smile.gif



Sorry forgot those the first time

57356XP6.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: Pajero
The quality of the build is impressive. The filtering not so much!


It's the perfect filter for someone who values build quality over efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
There's some rust on the base plate. What is the date code on top of the can?
smile.gif



Sorry forgot those the first time

57356XP6.jpg



Thanks
thumbsup2.gif


Wow 10/28/17

not even three months old, and it's already starting to rust
crazy2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Pajero
The quality of the build is impressive. The filtering not so much!

Many people enjoy mocking Fram for the OCOD, yet Fram makes one of the best oil filters on the market (efficiency rating context), aside from the price.


I have always been curious about this and BITOG stresses how important the micron rating is. 99% @ 35 microns (XP) vs 99% @ 20 microns (FU) in real world driving, can you quantify what that means for a daily driver?

Anecdotal: Our 4-cylinder Camry ran Toyota OEM filters (50% @ 20 microns) and Pennzoil conventional oil every 3-4k and the engine was still purring at 351,000 miles, but rust and a rear main seal leak made it not worth repairing. And, our RX330 just went over 226,000 miles on Toyota OEM filters.
 
I don’t think that is rust on the tapping plate, I noticed that the tapping plate looked sort of dirty but I think it is cardboard from the box mixed with anticorrosive sprayed on.

Wondering about the red stain in the media, I think that may also be a corrosion inhibitor (overspray) but not sure.
 
Originally Posted By: Pajero
Many people enjoy mocking Fram for the OCOD, yet Fram makes one of the best oil filters on the market (efficiency rating context), aside from the price.

Price of the Ultra is actually very good for what you get. You won't find a cheaper filter with the same construction and efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: newtoncd8
Originally Posted By: Pajero
The quality of the build is impressive. The filtering not so much!

Many people enjoy mocking Fram for the OCOD, yet Fram makes one of the best oil filters on the market (efficiency rating context), aside from the price.


I have always been curious about this and BITOG stresses how important the micron rating is. 99% @ 35 microns (XP) vs 99% @ 20 microns (FU) in real world driving, can you quantify what that means for a daily driver?

Anecdotal: Our 4-cylinder Camry ran Toyota OEM filters (50% @ 20 microns) and Pennzoil conventional oil every 3-4k and the engine was still purring at 351,000 miles, but rust and a rear main seal leak made it not worth repairing. And, our RX330 just went over 226,000 miles on Toyota OEM filters.


From the literally hundreds of engines I have had apart over the last 45 years I cant honestly say I had one where damage could be attributed to a lower efficiency oil filter media, I have seen a couple of engines where the wrong filter was installed and the engine let go within a few miles but that's another thing.
IMHO a failed ADBV would be of greater concern to me if the engine required it.

Personally based on real world tear down experience of high mileage engines this whole efficiency thing is nothing more than advertising hype with possibly a little horse manure thrown in the mix for good measure.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Personally based on real world tear down experience of high mileage engines this whole efficiency thing is nothing more than advertising hype with possibly a little horse manure thrown in the mix for good measure.


Thank you for that. I believe I will continue to use the poorly rated Toyota OEM (50% @ 20 micron) filter. My wife wants to make it to 500,000 miles on her RX (as I stated above, her Camry made it to 351,000 miles), so she has a pretty good track record. This time, I am using synthetic oil and 5k oil changes, so we will see how it goes ... thanks again.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
From the literally hundreds of engines I have had apart over the last 45 years I cant honestly say I had one where damage could be attributed to a lower efficiency oil filter media.

Visually inspecting for "damage" isn't going to tell you if an inefficient filter resulted in more engine wear. Engine components can visually look fine, but be out of dimensional specs due to wear. If you can see major visual damage, it's from lack of oiling, not lack of filter efficiency unless there was no filter and the oil was loaded with major wear debris.

Originally Posted By: Trav
I have seen a couple of engines where the wrong filter was installed and the engine let go within a few miles but that's another thing.

I'd like to hear the details of that situation.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Personally based on real world tear down experience of high mileage engines this whole efficiency thing is nothing more than advertising hype with possibly a little horse manure thrown in the mix for good measure.

Did you do a controlled experiment with accurate ways to measure wear to conclude that more efficient oil filtets don't prevent as much engine wear? Many experts have (ie, SAE papers), and they always conclude that cleaner oil results in less engine wear.
 
New engine measurements and wear limits from Honda FSM. Over 200K km all lubricated parts within new specs using Starrett micrometers (digital and analog).
This engine was owned by me from 0km brand new in crate motorcycle for over 12 years, run on one brand and weight oil except for the break in and Honda oil filters with the exception of a few aftermarket filters when OE was not available.

Engine was totally disassembled for a stretched cam chain, cylinder and pistons removed and cases split. The engine routinely saw 12,000 rpm and high sustained speeds.
What experts? I have SAE access. No dispute oil with few particles will result in less wear but the question is where do the particles come from?

This particular engine is a rare and perfect example for this discussion, it was in the same hand its whole life, taken care of by someone who knew how to and did take care of it and it has a full OCI history.
Another point worth mentioning is this engine was very tight and well protected against stray air ingress and tight ventilation system. The air intakes were located behind the riders legs on the side keeping the airflow to the filters air box low pressure and undisturbed air flow.

As the engine was not wearing to any measurable degree very few particles were being released into the oil, the oil did a good job of keeping carbon of the pistons and skirts.
The only real avenue for particle ingress would have been the air filter which was always replaced sometimes before recommended interval and obviously did its job as no scoring was evident in the soft tri metal bearing overlay.

Basically it would appear this engine could have run with not much more than a screen for an oil filter with no ill effects.
If an engine is leaking unfiltered air like a sieve like some old carburetor engines did from places like carb to air cleaner connection because the gasket was long gone years ago or leaky pcv system then yes I believe a more efficient oil filter would be of some benefit but how much additional engine life will result from it?

Modern engines are very well sealed against unfiltered air ingress and judging by the reduced size of oil filters found on many engines these days the oil filters efficiency is less important than flow through the system.
Some engines like those from VW use a large filter not only for filtering but for additional capacity like on the earlier 1.8 turbo engines.
Using a quality air filter with tight connections and changed on schedule is IMO probably the most important part of keeping particles out of the engine.

The engines I have seen ruined by incorrect oil filters were Fiat diesels that knocked or seized right after an oil and filter change. I have no info on which filter was installed as I didn't install them, I just investigated the damage, the engines and filters were subsequently sent to Fiat through the dealer network.
I did note however the filter that caused the damage had an ADBV in both cases and the OE spec did not indicating this particular engine possibly used a different flow through the filter.
 
Originally Posted By: Pajero
The quality of the build is impressive. The filtering not so much!

Many people enjoy mocking Fram for the OCOD, yet Fram makes one of the best oil filters on the market (efficiency rating context), aside from the price.





Respectfully,

Pajero!


Not the best . Mabe mid range . Not high range either . Either low or mid range . Without the ultra fram still having bad rep every where on car forum .

To op that a solid build filter , I am going to use wix xp next . Only reason I was using fram ultra was the synthetic media and WIREBACK . Now I see wix build the same but more solid. It will be my to go filter from now . Wix made one of the best filter on the market . No bad rep any where I go. Fram do have bad rep every where I go.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
New engine measurements and wear limits from Honda FSM. Over 200K km all lubricated parts within new specs using Starrett micrometers (digital and analog).
This engine was owned by me from 0km brand new in crate motorcycle for over 12 years, run on one brand and weight oil except for the break in and Honda oil filters with the exception of a few aftermarket filters when OE was not available.

Engine was totally disassembled for a stretched cam chain, cylinder and pistons removed and cases split. The engine routinely saw 12,000 rpm and high sustained speeds.
What experts? I have SAE access. No dispute oil with few particles will result in less wear but the question is where do the particles come from?

How do you know the filters you used on that engine weren't pretty high efficiency? Any specified efficiency rating given for them?

Just because all the parts were still in FSM specs doesn't mean there wasn't some wear.

The most basic way to determine if a better filter would have made a difference in wear would to measure the wear rate in two separate engines with all conditions the same except for the filter. Tear each engine down and measure to 0.0001" accuracy, run the engines under the same exact conditions using yhe dame oil and maintenance schedule, then tear down and measure again to compare. Need a delta from the new measurements baseline. Just measuring and comparing to the wear-out spec range in the FSM doesn't actually tell you how much wear there was compared to the new engine baseline measurements. Way more sophisticated methods of measuring engine wear are discussed in SAE papers.

And yes, I agree that a bad air filter can really cause high wear rates, especially on valves, rings and cylinder walls. Engines with a good air filter still produce debris from combustion blow-by and from start-up wear, and from being ran when the oil film thickness breaks down for some reason and causes metal to metal contact wear. No oil prevents 100% separation of heavily loaded moving parts a 100% of the time.
 
Everyone who thanked me is welcome.

My main issue with this one is that it was $11.00 (Maybe I just don’t know the secret handshake to get them cheaper). Regardless of whether it matters or not in the real world I don’t like that they apparently refuse to give us the efficiency at the ISO standard.

It is well built, but so is the Fram. Unless you are a coil spring aficionado I see nothing to distinguish this over the Fram XG particularly when cost is factored in.
 
Application matters. The FRAM Ultra(XG) is fine on many cars, just as is the WIX. Just me but, no dome end bypass filter gets near my Ford. The KIA OE filter has the dome end bypass and either a FRAM Ultra or WIX is acceptable.
 
Now your talking silly. I am a private person not a company that can afford the cost of tearing engines apart, testing them then tear them apart again.
This engine was in in my hands from 93-2005, the oil filters were OE Honda and not synthetic media, the few aftermarket ones I used were inexpensive as I changed the oil every 5K.
Meeting new engine spec is new spec and no scoring or scratches is no scoring or scratches its that simple.

When you can reuse bearing shells after over 200K km on a high output engine 135 HP/ltr something was working right.
Does it matter how efficient the filter was? According to you it had to be inferior to the Fram in any case.

Personally IMHO this Fram Ultra efficiency love fest is way over the top. Why don't you go and tear some engines apart and do some testing yourself instead of making claims about this paper and that expert.
I have been reading papers for decades and in many cases the conditions were so tightly controlled and pretty much produced the anticipated results but when you rip into the engine driven daily its another story.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav

When you can reuse bearing shells after over 200K km on a high output engine 135 HP/ltr something was working right.
Does it matter how efficient the filter was? According to you it had to be inferior to the Fram in any case.

Personally IMHO this Fram Ultra efficiency love fest is way over the top.




Man, finally somebody says the king has no clothes.
If you listen to all the talk on this site, it's ether a Fram Ultra or you engine will fail at 25K miles.
There was an unspoken word in the radio station business years ago and I think that word applies to this site.
The word is: Payola
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top