Has anyone cut open a Napa Platinum oil filter to see how it is different from a Napa Gold oi filter?
SF
SF
Last edited:
Napa Platinum vs Napa Gold Oil Filter
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
- Status
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
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.
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.
That was a well made video. Thanks for posting it.
SF
SF
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
So if there was any question on the Gold vs Platinum filtration, looks like Gold has a much better price point. Any thoughts?
SF
Fram ULTRA from E-Bay. Better than both of them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Interesting! My UOA running Amsoil EA-044 oil filter had insolubles at .3. But, it was 23 years old too.
Respectfully,
Pajero!
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
