Wix XP efficiency

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
But thing that make me hate fram one and for all is those fram rep that push user to use their filter .


I think you need to post up such links to prove that. I see nobody "pushing" anyone to use any certain filter. People talk about the good and the bad of oil filters in their opinion, and the filters they like for the reasons they like them. The people who are believable have facts and data to back-up what they say. People read what people say and then make up their own minds on what to use. You must have a different way of interpreting what people are saying, but again I challenge you to show where someone has "pushed" anyone to use a certain filter here.

 

[dnewton3]

By the way, in case you all had forgot (or maybe didn't know) ...

The website Fleetfilter.com has the actual Beta data for the Wix products.


Many, many moons ago, Wix used to publish the ACTUAL unique beta numbers for their filters. Several years ago, they started "whitewashing" the data to be "2/20=6/20" or such.

But Fleetfilter kept all the original data. I just checked; you can still see much of the original beta data for many Wix filters.

 

[MetalSlug]

I’m joint BITOG back in 06-07 with another name , Helen and I talk about it over the phone few time , she is very welcome me when we talk on the phone . Fram was the filter every one hating and it’s true. Fram quality haven’t change . I seen they cut open the first fram back then . I seen peoples cut open as right now . It’s sad why any one would run something like that ? All that marketing I don’t believe . Who would have money’s to get the filter test to make sure that right rating . So all that fram marketing is :crackmeup . I know a quality filter when I see one. Not what they marketing it to. Search all my post I have not bad mouth about fram ultra . I actually running them right now on my daily drive and my terminator cobra . I have no negative thing to say about ultra . Thing that make me terminator complete fram line of product is the fram rep.

 

[MetalSlug]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
But thing that make me hate fram one and for all is those fram rep that push user to use their filter .


I think you need to post up such links to prove that. I see nobody "pushing" anyone to use any certain filter. People talk about the good and the bad of oil filters in their opinion, and the filters they like for the reasons they like them. The people who are believable have facts and data to back-up what they say. People read what people say and then make up their own minds on what to use. You must have a different way of interpreting what people are saying, but again I challenge you to show where someone has "pushed" anyone to use a certain filter here.


I’m not going to search for it . But here is few example that I seen . One guy cut open a filter with UOA . It’s came back good and Blackstone actually told them that they can go longer xxxx amount of miles . Ok that good right . Then few came and suggest using this fram because it’s cheaper and better micron rating or better efficiency or what ever . Then more peoples came pretent to agree with it . If the owner happy with old set up and the test came back perfect . Why would you suggest your product for ?

I seen peoples nip pick about little residua inside the filter . Or some spot on filter is having more glue . Or filter having little wayvy after 5000 miles . Then turn around suggest fram TG

. That sad . When I saw that and for being here for so long and know and seen true about the fram. It’s just sad

Go YouTube . Go other car performing site . Yellowbullet . Ls1 tech . Svtperformance . TOYOTA Supra forum and try suggest fram . It’s won’t work there . Even YouTube . Go on there and suggest fram is best filter in the world on one of those cut open comparing oil filter video . It won’t work there either . Fram is having very bad rep since 06-08 . It won’t change peoples mind now . Even ultra still won’t save them bad rep

I knew countless peoples that want fram TG to use metal end cap for years . But fram won’t listen . They don’t care . “ if you want metal end cap pay more and buy my ultra “

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
I’m not going to search for it . But here is few example that I seen . One guy cut open a filter with UOA . It’s came back good and Blackstone actually told them that they can go longer xxxx amount of miles . Ok that good right . Then few came and suggest using this fram because it’s cheaper and better micron rating or better efficiency or what ever . Then more peoples came pretent to agree with it . If the owner happy with old set up and the test came back perfect . Why would you suggest your product for ?

The problem here is that there is no test anyone on this board can run that will indicate filtering efficiency. A Blackstone UOA will not. Any additional wear that a low-efficiency filter may produce will not show up in a UOA of any sort.

 

[MetalSlug]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
I’m not going to search for it . But here is few example that I seen . One guy cut open a filter with UOA . It’s came back good and Blackstone actually told them that they can go longer xxxx amount of miles . Ok that good right . Then few came and suggest using this fram because it’s cheaper and better micron rating or better efficiency or what ever . Then more peoples came pretent to agree with it . If the owner happy with old set up and the test came back perfect . Why would you suggest your product for ?

The problem here is that there is no test anyone on this board can run that will indicate filtering efficiency. A Blackstone UOA will not. Any additional wear that a low-efficiency filter may produce will not show up in a UOA of any sort.


yes sir !!! that is exactly what I mean. No one can tell if its true, they go by what other fram rep telling them the rating. example like " fram having better rating, 99% better then your 98% ", but one you cut open each, you can tell which one is better quality then other. which one is well made filter, which one feel and weight better in your hand, not what % they rate for that NO one can test it.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
yes sir !!! that is exactly what I mean. No one can tell if its true, they go by what other fram rep telling them the rating. example like " fram having better rating, 99% better then your 98% ", but one you cut open each, you can tell which one is better quality then other. which one is well made filter, which one feel and weight better in your hand, not what % they rate for that NO one can test it.

Right, but I didn't mean that no one can test them for efficiency. The manufacturer can (and should), whether and how they report the results is up to them. I guess I don't have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the results, I can have doubts about how they are reported but within that context I don't think they lie about the specific numbers. To me this is along the same lines as I can't verify that an oil I buy for my BMW actually carries Longlife-01 certification either. But sometimes manufacturers say it "meets" a certification or is "recommended for", so in the same way as how filtering efficiencies are reported you have to read them carefully.

 

[MetalSlug]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
yes sir !!! that is exactly what I mean. No one can tell if its true, they go by what other fram rep telling them the rating. example like " fram having better rating, 99% better then your 98% ", but one you cut open each, you can tell which one is better quality then other. which one is well made filter, which one feel and weight better in your hand, not what % they rate for that NO one can test it.

Right, but I didn't mean that no one can test them for efficiency. The manufacturer can (and should), whether and how they report the results is up to them. I guess I don't have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the results, I can have doubts about how they are reported but within that context I don't think they lie about the specific numbers. To me this is along the same lines as I can't verify that an oil I buy for my BMW actually carries Longlife-01 certification either. But sometimes manufacturers say it "meets" a certification or is "recommended for", so in the same way as how filtering efficiencies are reported you have to read them carefully.


you right.

 

[MetalSlug]

I bought my first wix xp other day, with oreilly $5 off, turn out to be around $6 , I want a wireback full synthetic filter, i am using fram ultra right now on my whipple cobra terminator for the same reason, wireback with synthetic media, but will drop it for wix xp next oil change. because the fram marketing rep

, Imma stick with my old way, until fram switch over to metal end cap in all their oil filter line, I wont using fram any more. wix xp and fram ultra kinda weight the same and feel the same, the purolator boss was the heavy one out off the three.


these 3 filter i have in cabin right now, I still have bunch of those Bosch Distant Plus from 35 cent clearance out from walmart, suprise the bosch distant plus was the most heavy compare 2 other, wix xp feel really light, and my all time favorite Motorcraft FL820s feel the most lighter, I wish they still making bosch distant plus at my local store. you can tell its good. All my mustang running same filter, all these 3 filter are made cross number from FL820s.

 

[MParr]

MetalSlug
Good for you! Purchasing filters that best suit you and your applications. I’m not above trying filters of any brand. There are 2 particular filters from a certain brand that will not go on my cars. I’m sure you have seen oil pressure fluctuations from using a certain filter.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The people who are believable have facts and data to back-up what they say.


So lets see some facts proving using the Fram Ultra will produce less engine wear vs any other filter that has no mechanical or material failure and without deliberately adding contaminates to the oil.
If you can do that I will be happy to join your fan boy brigade.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
I’m not going to search for it . But here is few example that I seen . One guy cut open a filter with UOA . It’s came back good and Blackstone actually told them that they can go longer xxxx amount of miles . Ok that good right . Then few came and suggest using this fram because it’s cheaper and better micron rating or better efficiency or what ever . Then more peoples came pretent to agree with it . If the owner happy with old set up and the test came back perfect . Why would you suggest your product for ?

The problem here is that there is no test anyone on this board can run that will indicate filtering efficiency. A Blackstone UOA will not. Any additional wear that a low-efficiency filter may produce will not show up in a UOA of any sort.


I am curious what makes you say that?

UOAs will see most anything elemental at or less than 5um.

A low eff filter would make for lots of particulate in the system. That particulate will be of all manner of sizes; not just one size. And all that "stuff" in the system will, in turn, generate wear metals. The wear metals will also be a "range" in size; some to big to see, but certainly some small enough to register in a UOA.

UOAs won't see ALL wear, but they see a PORTION of wear, and that portion is proportional to the amount of particulate in the stream. SAE902238 filter study shows this to be true. As the particulate load was altered via filtration, the spectral Fe wear metals were an "echo" (my word choice) and correlated to the particulate load.

The reason we don't see much change in wear data today regarding filter choices is because other things (air filter and lube add-pack) control silica and soot far more than does the FF filter.


The difference in FF filter efficiencies that are generated in a lab are typically dosed heavily with particulate, so that disparity comes out. But in the real world, today's equipment runs so cleanly that you'll not see the disparity because the particulate load never gets large enough (quantity or size) to create a distinguishable difference in wear data.


If one filter was 99% at 20um, and the other was 80% at 20um, the reason you'll not see the difference in a UOA is NOT because the UOA cannot see wear (it most certainly can).
It's because there's not enough particulate present to cause much wear at all, and so the minimum difference (15% delta) cannot alter the overall particulate damage rate enough to generate enough wear particles.


I disagree with your assessment. And there are some studies we can use to draw reasonable conclusions.
It's not that UOAs cannot see the wear shift.
It's because there's not enough particulate present to cause a discernible wear shift.

The lube is keeping soot very small and the air filter is keeping silica out. Combine that with the TCB effect holding back asperity, and there's just not a whole lot of wear going on at all. SAE2007-01-4133 goes so far as to show that wear rates are "nearly zero" as the OCIs mature. How you going to find a filter disparity when your engine only sheds 1ppm Fe per 1k miles in total????????? The wear is incredibly small from ALl causes; you'll never distinguish two different filters in a system running this cleanly.

 

[kschachn]

So if I change the oil filter on my BMW from (lets say) a Hengst to a Mann and see an increase in 9 ppm of aluminum (there are no liners on this engine) I can statistically correlate the increase to the filter change on the basis of that single UOA? Because that is what was proposed and that was what I was responding to.

If that's what you are saying, then what change in what UOA parameter directly correlates to filtering efficiency?

 

[goodtimes]

How I understand UOA values is it is atoms of the element measured. Wear metals aren't going to be things any normal filter can take out. Normal wear metals are not going to be a micron in size or there is bigger trouble. Wear is going to be molecules of whatever material coming off slowly. Rust would create higher Fe. Aluminum oxide corrosion would create higher Al. Never could quite understand how UOA correlates to oil filters except the unfiltered particles are also in the UOA test results. So it seems to me it is both wear molecules plus larger particles in a UOA number.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
But thing that make me hate fram one and for all is those fram rep that push user to use their filter .


I think you need to post up such links to prove that. I see nobody "pushing" anyone to use any certain filter. People talk about the good and the bad of oil filters in their opinion, and the filters they like for the reasons they like them. The people who are believable have facts and data to back-up what they say. People read what people say and then make up their own minds on what to use. You must have a different way of interpreting what people are saying, but again I challenge you to show where someone has "pushed" anyone to use a certain filter here.


I’m not going to search for it . But here is few example that I seen . One guy cut open a filter with UOA . It’s came back good and Blackstone actually told them that they can go longer xxxx amount of miles . Ok that good right . Then few came and suggest using this fram because it’s cheaper and better micron rating or better efficiency or what ever . Then more peoples came pretent to agree with it . If the owner happy with old set up and the test came back perfect . Why would you suggest your product for ?

I seen peoples nip pick about little residua inside the filter . Or some spot on filter is having more glue . Or filter having little wayvy after 5000 miles . Then turn around suggest fram TG

. That sad . When I saw that and for being here for so long and know and seen true about the fram. It’s just sad

Go YouTube . Go other car performing site . Yellowbullet . Ls1 tech . Svtperformance . TOYOTA Supra forum and try suggest fram . It’s won’t work there . Even YouTube . Go on there and suggest fram is best filter in the world on one of those cut open comparing oil filter video . It won’t work there either . Fram is having very bad rep since 06-08 . It won’t change peoples mind now . Even ultra still won’t save them bad rep

I knew countless peoples that want fram TG to use metal end cap for years . But fram won’t listen . They don’t care . “ if you want metal end cap pay more and buy my ultra “


What you are describing above is not "pushing" in my book ... it's exactly what I've described - information is being given and its up to the reader to decide what's good or not and go from there. That's how this world operates in almost everything you do. You or anyone else here makes up their own mind on what they want to use based on how they interpret the information being laid out by members here. Nobody is forcing or pushing anyone else to use a certain filter. If someone thinks that then they can't think for themselves it seems.

And the uninformed people on YouTube or where ever don't even know a great filter half the time, and probably most of them are super biased because of the name on the can. It's guys like that that can't be trusted to give any kind of accurate opinion on stuff because they are blinded by brand hate. Many here see that the EG and TG are not bad filters ... they are a lot better than a lot of stuff because they don't fail and they have good efficiency. The EG is just as efficient or better than most filters on the market. Yeah, I shouldn't say anymore because someone might think I'm a "bully" Fram "rep" that's "pushing" to make someone use those filters. If anyone is that easily swayed then I have some beach front property at the north pole to sell you.

If every member here was labeled a "Fram Rep" because they said something good about a Fram, then half the chat board would be "working for Fram".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MetalSlug
yes sir !!! that is exactly what I mean. No one can tell if its true, they go by what other fram rep telling them the rating. example like " fram having better rating, 99% better then your 98% ", but one you cut open each, you can tell which one is better quality then other. which one is well made filter, which one feel and weight better in your hand, not what % they rate for that NO one can test it.


ISO 4548-12 ... it's the only test to compare filter efficiency against each other. Companies who publish ISO efficiency specs probably sell more filters than companies that don't, at least to people who are concerned about what a filter is supposed to do ... namely, filter the oil.

If just looking at a filter and having your brain go "wow, that filter looks good" is your only requirement for choosing a filter then that's great if it makes you feel good. Some people here are a bit more technical when deciding what filter to use ... that's all good too for them because they've satisfied their own requirements. Some people have way more requirements in making decisions than other people ... again, that's true for most decisions made on a daily basis.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The people who are believable have facts and data to back-up what they say.


So lets see some facts proving using the Fram Ultra will produce less engine wear vs any other filter that has no mechanical or material failure and without deliberately adding contaminates to the oil.
If you can do that I will be happy to join your fan boy brigade.

We've been over that a few times already if you've been reading the forum often - lots of post with lots of links and graphs, etc shown. I've seen enough formal SAE test reports and other papers discussing "engine wear vs particle size" to see that cleaner oil means less engine wear.

Yeah I know, you ran a motorcycle engine for many miles with what you thought were low efficiency oil filters (yet you didn't really know their efficiency because you had no specifications on them), and then tore the engine down and everything "looked good" and measured within the FSM specs. Again, that is not a real "test" to determine if using a better or worse filters made any difference without doing a way more sophisticated method of measuring wear vs oil cleanliness.

Bottom line is cleaner oil result in less engine wear. There is nobody on this chat board who can prove that's not true. If you think you can, then let's see the links. I like to use higher efficiency oil filters because they no doubt give cleaner oil - that's why you see a lot of talk about high efficiency oil filters. The Microgreen guys like them because supposedly they filter even better than the Ultra tier filters - yet recent talk is that they might not be as claimed by the manufacturer.

We've seen a few ISO cleanliness particle count comparisons here, and with that test you can see that the oil is running cleaner with a more efficient oil filter. Even if using a low efficiency filter, and good oil and a good air filter resulted in an engine never wearing out past the FSM specs, I'd rather use a higher efficiency filter because I know it's keeping the oil cleaner.

And BTW Metalslug ... nice Cobra, but you do realize right that the low efficiency K&N air filter you're running is wearing out your engine faster than a better air filter. And you might want a more efficient oil filter to help make up for that low efficiency air filter. Just a suggestion ...

 

[goodtimes]

The volunteer Fram rep and I have gone to gladiator battle

over any slight to the Ultra. Big defects? it's just a fluke, here let's send it in. Happens again, oh well anything can happen in manufacturing these days, let's send it to Jay. It has to be the best. All because of a rapid efficiency test. That rhymes.

All in good fun to avoid chores BTW.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
How you going to find a filter disparity when your engine only sheds 1ppm Fe per 1k miles in total????????? The wear is incredibly small from ALL causes; you'll never distinguish two different filters in a system running this cleanly.


When you see typical ISO cleanliness tests done on engines, depending on particle size, there can be anywhere from 100 to 1000 particles per ml of oil. In 5 qts of oil, that's 4732 milliliters. If there was and average of 500 particles per ml, that would be 2.37 million particles of whatever composition and size distribution floating around.

Fe wear metals seen in standard UOAs are probably mostly a result of metal-to-metal contact due to high loads and inferior oil. I'd think most of the Fe wear levels found in UOAs is ring & cylinder wear and also cam to lifter/shim contact wear. Higher number of cylinders means the levels should scale up accordingly. Quad cam engines should produce more Fe than a single cam pushrod engine. I'd certainly think the normal wear of the metal parts would be higher than 1 ppm in 1K miles.

What would be interesting, and IMO more accurate information, is standard UOA data along side the ISO particle count data for a low efficiency (50% @ 20u) filter vs a high efficiency (99% @ 20u) filter and see if there is a more visible trend associated with the filter being used. Yes, I agree there wear is in the "noise level" when looking at UOA data, but doesn't mean that a better filter is actually helping even more to keep some wear down. People here are looking for gigantic differences - ie, my engine "blew-up" or "I looked at the parts and they were all scored up" type of confirmation. That's not going to happen ... if it does it's probably not the oil filters causing such engine wear.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The volunteer Fram rep and I have gone to gladiator battle

over any slight to the Ultra. Big defects? it's just a fluke, here let's send it in. Happens again, oh well anything can happen in manufacturing these days, let's send it to Jay. It has to be the best. All because of a rapid efficiency test. That rhymes.

All in good fun to avoid chores BTW.


Yeah, all in goodtimes fun. Sure, there have been a few Ultra failures here and there (mostly certain cartridge filters), but not anywhere near the rate of some other well known brand name filter (take a guess). A few Ultra spin-ons had loose guts, but very few reported, and the ones that did were suspect of being dropped hard. And Fram actually responded to the concern, unlike many other filter companies would do (take another wild guess).

If I started seeing Ultras failing left and right like the Tearolator fiasco did, I'd stop using it in a heartbeat and go to the next best filter. Just like what happened when I was a "volunteer Purolator Rep", then switched to a "voluntary Fram Rep". Maybe I'll end up being a "volunteer Ford Racing Rep" since that filter is super duper too from the specs I've seen.