Recent Topics
Tranny fluid in Old Ferguson Tractor ?
by Rudy1999 250. 09/20/18 03:39 PM
New (old) car inbound
by BeerCan. 09/20/18 02:42 PM
Ford AWD PTU fluid always black
by Raven. 09/20/18 02:34 PM
PC not charging
by sleepery. 09/20/18 01:53 PM
Can alternators make noise?
by Benzadmiral. 09/20/18 01:21 PM
Pr 1970 Superbirds For sale - Barn Find
by user52165. 09/20/18 12:32 PM
Fram Ultra Air Filters
by StevieC. 09/20/18 12:20 PM
Change oil filter or not. Very low miles
by Martin10. 09/20/18 11:37 AM
Toslink optical audio cable (plastic) experience
by ffhdriver. 09/20/18 11:30 AM
A woman I work with wants an affair with me!
by Drew99GT. 09/20/18 11:08 AM
ACEA A5/B5 REQUIREMENTS
by Kjmack. 09/20/18 10:56 AM
Carolina Reaper hot peppers
by gman2304. 09/20/18 09:54 AM
New Fram air filter?
by irv. 09/20/18 09:15 AM
Any golf cart experts?
by HawkeyeScott. 09/20/18 09:15 AM
EU Subaru 2.5 FB engine oil
by IMPALA08. 09/20/18 08:16 AM
02 Focus head replacement
by Eric Smith. 09/20/18 08:08 AM
A5/B5 or A3/B3
by ka9mnx. 09/20/18 07:53 AM
2018 Mazda 3 2.5 Castrol or Mazda Moly
by mazdamonky. 09/20/18 07:44 AM
What fuel are you running?
by Matagonka. 09/20/18 07:25 AM
Newest Members
FarmerDude, Bman90, Alday714, Joephoto, tlelectric
66021 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
79 registered members (Ablebody, 77GrandPrix, 28oz, 86cutlass307, 2009Edge, 4 invisible), 1,725 guests, and 37 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics290,723
Posts4,849,107
Members66,021
Most Online3,590
Jan 24th, 2017
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter #4675333
02/23/18 11:19 AM
02/23/18 11:19 AM
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,314
SE British Columbia, Canada
Snagglefoot Offline OP
Snagglefoot  Offline OP
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,314
SE British Columbia, Canada
Has anyone cut open a Napa Platinum oil filter to see how it is different from a Napa Gold oi filter?

SF

Last edited by Snagglefoot; 02/23/18 11:20 AM.

If you want the job done right......do it yourself.
Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: Snagglefoot] #4675344
02/23/18 11:30 AM
02/23/18 11:30 AM
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 109
VA
MSTUEBER Offline
MSTUEBER  Offline
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 109
VA


2017 Fiat 124 Spider Abarth .... factory fill
2015 Chrysler 200 0w20 Milesyn Wix XP
1992 Mazda Miata Napa 5w30 Napa Gold
Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: Snagglefoot] #4675370
02/23/18 11:58 AM
02/23/18 11:58 AM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 9,322
1/2 hr N.E. of Detroit
Triple_Se7en Offline
Triple_Se7en  Offline
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 9,322
1/2 hr N.E. of Detroit
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Has anyone cut open a Napa Platinum oil filter to see how it is different from a Napa Gold oi filter?

SF


Mainly the media is different, specially created for synthetic oil usage.
But from what I've read, filtering efficiency favors the Gold over the Platinum.


She's the only sister-in-law I have. But she's not my favorite.
Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: MSTUEBER] #4675380
02/23/18 12:06 PM
02/23/18 12:06 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 18,663
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 18,663
PNW
He seems to know what he's taking about until he gets to talking about the efficiency. He assumes the Platinum filters better than the Gold, but he's wrong on that one. If you want better filtering get the Gold.

Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: Snagglefoot] #4675398
02/23/18 12:20 PM
02/23/18 12:20 PM
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,314
SE British Columbia, Canada
Snagglefoot Offline OP
Snagglefoot  Offline OP
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,314
SE British Columbia, Canada
That was a well made video. Thanks for posting it.

SF


If you want the job done right......do it yourself.
Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: Snagglefoot] #4675404
02/23/18 12:27 PM
02/23/18 12:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,314
SE British Columbia, Canada
Snagglefoot Offline OP
Snagglefoot  Offline OP
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,314
SE British Columbia, Canada
From the NAPA US website, for a 7045 filter, Silver was $5.99, Gold was $7.29 and Platinum was $11.99.

So if there was any question on the Gold vs Platinum filtration, looks like Gold has a much better price point. Any thoughts?

SF


If you want the job done right......do it yourself.
Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: Snagglefoot] #4675409
02/23/18 12:32 PM
02/23/18 12:32 PM
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 109
VA
MSTUEBER Offline
MSTUEBER  Offline
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 109
VA
When Napa puts their filters on sale, I always stock up on the Gold!


2017 Fiat 124 Spider Abarth .... factory fill
2015 Chrysler 200 0w20 Milesyn Wix XP
1992 Mazda Miata Napa 5w30 Napa Gold
Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: Snagglefoot] #4675417
02/23/18 12:44 PM
02/23/18 12:44 PM
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,699
USA
oldhp Offline
oldhp  Offline
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,699
USA
Fram ULTRA from E-Bay. Better than both of them.



Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: Snagglefoot] #4675437
02/23/18 01:03 PM
02/23/18 01:03 PM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,665
Columbus,Nebraska
Yah-Tah-Hey Online content
Yah-Tah-Hey  Online Content
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,665
Columbus,Nebraska
I cut a new Gold filter awhile back and not impressed at all. Looks cheap. Wouldn't use one if they gave it to me. I like the oil filter brand I have used for years. Can't say what I use for another ten months and five days. Someone else might know.

Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: Snagglefoot] #4675447
02/23/18 01:15 PM
02/23/18 01:15 PM
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 534
San Antonio, TX
das_peikko Offline
das_peikko  Offline
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 534
San Antonio, TX
I have one cut open that I need to post. The NAPA Platinum is constructed very very well. I like the construction better than the FRAM Ultra, but that's a preference thing.

Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: das_peikko] #4675474
02/23/18 01:42 PM
02/23/18 01:42 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 110
Seattle, WA
SnowmanCO Offline
SnowmanCO  Offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 110
Seattle, WA
Napa Platinum = Wix XP. Exact same filter. I am impressed with the construction of the XPs. Some people on here are concerned with their filtering efficiency though. I am not one of them.


16 F150 5.0-QS UD 5w20,MtCrft FL500S
10 Merc C300-Mob 1 0w40,MANN H U7 18/5X
08 Maz3S 2.3-Cast Syn 5w30,Wix 57203XP
17JD D160-Cast Syn 0w30,MtCrft FL400S
Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: ZeeOSix] #4675489
02/23/18 01:55 PM
02/23/18 01:55 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,336
Winchester, Indiana
SubieRubyRoo Offline
SubieRubyRoo  Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,336
Winchester, Indiana
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
He seems to know what he's taking about until he gets to talking about the efficiency. He assumes the Platinum filters better than the Gold, but he's wrong on that one. If you want better filtering get the Gold.


Zee, not for the sake of argument but for the sake of discussion, I pose a couple questions. I assume you are basing all your points about efficiency from the posted beta numbers on Wix's website about the Gold and Platinum, correct? Is it possible that with the decline of Wix's filter efficiency information, that this is something that was not properly verified? Companies have been known to have the left hand doing something that the right hand doesn't know about.

Reason I ask: I know you have stated many times before that the Platinum/XP has worse beta ratings than Gold. I have never run a Gold, but I have run Platinum, Fram Ultra, Amsoil, and Purolator filters with the same oil in the same car (PUP, 2011 Fusion). When I charted my 90k+ of UOAs data varying in OCI from 7.6k to 17.2k and broke it down on a per-mile basis, the Platinum filters always had lower wear number totals (but TBCH, all of my tests were statistically similar when evaluated on wear per 1k miles) and it did return the only UOA I've ever had with 0.1 insolubles. All other filter brands returned at least 0.2 or higher insolubles. I know there are other scientific methods that can give additional insight to the filtration, but the lowest wear numbers per mile and lowest insolubles seems pretty solid to me as a rating method.

That being said, I do not have a preference for the Platinum filters... I shop with the almighty dollar. Napa Golds are great filters, Fram Ultras are great especially when Rural King has 12% back on 7.99! Platinum is definitely low on the ROI chart because of the cost, but I have run them 15k with good results. It's just you can match the performance for less money.

Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: SubieRubyRoo] #4675569
02/23/18 03:01 PM
02/23/18 03:01 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 953
Rio Rancho, NM
Pajero Offline
Pajero  Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 953
Rio Rancho, NM


Reason I ask: I know you have stated many times before that the Platinum/XP has worse beta ratings than Gold. I have never run a Gold, but I have run Platinum, Fram Ultra, Amsoil, and Purolator filters with the same oil in the same car (PUP, 2011 Fusion). When I charted my 90k+ of UOAs data varying in OCI from 7.6k to 17.2k and broke it down on a per-mile basis, the Platinum filters always had lower wear number totals (but TBCH, all of my tests were statistically similar when evaluated on wear per 1k miles) and it did return the only UOA I've ever had with 0.1 insolubles. All other filter brands returned at least 0.2 or higher insolubles. I know there are other scientific methods that can give additional insight to the filtration, but the lowest wear numbers per mile and lowest insolubles seems pretty solid to me as a rating method. [/quote]

Interesting! My UOA running Amsoil EA-044 oil filter had insolubles at .3. But, it was 23 years old too.



Respectfully,

Pajero!


Always remember "Planned obsolescence."

1994 Montero SR 3.5 DOHC, 133,xxx
Fram Ultra/ Snorkel with Pre-filter
K-9-Co-pilot
Re: Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter [Re: SubieRubyRoo] #4675599
02/23/18 03:41 PM
02/23/18 03:41 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 18,663
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 18,663
PNW
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
He seems to know what he's taking about until he gets to talking about the efficiency. He assumes the Platinum filters better than the Gold, but he's wrong on that one. If you want better filtering get the Gold.

Zee, not for the sake of argument but for the sake of discussion, I pose a couple questions. I assume you are basing all your points about efficiency from the posted beta numbers on Wix's website about the Gold and Platinum, correct? Is it possible that with the decline of Wix's filter efficiency information, that this is something that was not properly verified? Companies have been known to have the left hand doing something that the right hand doesn't know about.


Not sure what you mean by "properly verified". The NAPA and WIX lines are the same filters inside the cans - that's been said for years, so doubt NAPA puts different requirements/specs on their NAPA line. Ever since the XP/Platinum came out people have called up WIX Tech Line to see if their advertised efficiency spec was an error. The answer keeps coming back from WIX that their numbers are not an error. If it was, it would have been changed by now after a 100 guys call them up questioning the efficiency numbers. Unless someone can verify that the NAPA and WIX lines are different filters with different efficiencies I think it's safe to say they are the same in performance because they are the same guts inside the can.

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Reason I ask: I know you have stated many times before that the Platinum/XP has worse beta ratings than Gold. I have never run a Gold, but I have run Platinum, Fram Ultra, Amsoil, and Purolator filters with the same oil in the same car (PUP, 2011 Fusion). When I charted my 90k+ of UOAs data varying in OCI from 7.6k to 17.2k and broke it down on a per-mile basis, the Platinum filters always had lower wear number totals (but TBCH, all of my tests were statistically similar when evaluated on wear per 1k miles) and it did return the only UOA I've ever had with 0.1 insolubles. All other filter brands returned at least 0.2 or higher insolubles. I know there are other scientific methods that can give additional insight to the filtration, but the lowest wear numbers per mile and lowest insolubles seems pretty solid to me as a rating method.


It's been said many times that normal Blackstone type of UOAs aren't a real good indication of filter performance, especially if comparisons are made over varying large OCI ranges like your was being from 7.6K to 17.2K. Not sure if "normalizing" the data per 1K miles actually gives you any useful info. What you really need to better compare filter performance on the road (using constant OCI mileage runs) is an ISO 4406 test for oil particulate cleanliness. Example - http://www.precisionfiltration.com/products/iso-4406-cleanliness-code.asp

I know some people don't put much confidence in the ISO 4548-12 test data that manufactures use, but I do because it compares filter performance under the same test conditions & procedure. Some will say it doesn't mirror what's going on in real life, and I'll agree with that. But IMO a filter that tests more efficient in the ISO 4548-12 test is also probably going to perform more efficiently in actual use. Why wouldn't it? I've seen zero information or data that says a filter that tested high in the lab is going to fall on it's face in actual use ... unless the media it torn. grin2


BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™