Wix response to filter efficiency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
571
Location
VA
I got some info from Hastings yesterday on filter efficiency, so I decided to write to Wix asking about the same filters crossed to their part numbers. Here is the response.



Screenshot_20191213-142007_Outlook.jpg
 
Last edited:
Efficiency of 95% @ 20μ is what the regular WIX oil filters have been for many years.
 
The betas listed consistent with information directly from the Wix website for each application. The 'interpretation' given for the 51372 looks incorrect. 95%@25um. As noted majority Wix labeled, 95%@20um. Napa Gold would be the same.
 
Matches Fram orange can efficiency. Typical for a paper filter with resin of glass fibers mixed in.
Ultra holds more dirt. Thats important to go 20,000 miles if you want.
 
You didn't need to email them; that info is on their site.
And it's pretty much the white-washed stuff we expect from Wix.
Gone are the days (more than a decade ago) when they actually published the unique data for each filter.
 
Originally Posted by dnewton3
You didn't need to email them; that info is on their site.
And it's pretty much the white-washed stuff we expect from Wix.
Gone are the days (more than a decade ago) when they actually published the unique data for each filter.


I have to think that when they showed individual beta ratios for each filter that they must have been using some kind of computer model to determine that. I just can't see any filter company doing an efficiency bench test for every oil filter they manufacture. That would cost TONS of money. So maybe that's why they white washed it based on a filter or two that they actually tested ... just like the other filter manufacturers do.
 
Interesting premise ...
In the HVAC industry, we have to test the high-sales-volume combinations (which is a lot), and then we model all other match-ups.
It's possible that what you propose could be the method they use.
Perhaps they test certain applications as the extremes, and then model those in-between.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
That would cost TONS of money. So maybe that's why they white washed it based on a filter or two that they actually tested ... just like the other filter manufacturers do.


All of their filter media comes from 4, 5 or 6 basic formula rolls...

Basic oil (20 micron), fuel primary (10 micron), fuel secondary (2 micron), hydraulic (10 micron), and the XP line.... etc. etc.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
….. So maybe that's why they white washed it based on a filter or two that they actually tested ... just like the other filter manufacturers do.
Good point and accurate. Oddly I don't read that term used for the other manufacturers when their filter efficiencies are referenced based on a couple/few filters in the footnotes. I suppose it's all in ones perspective though.

Apparently here the "white-wash" missed the 51372 in OP query. As correctly noted in my initial post, all betas consistent with the Wix website info from which they were obviously sourced.

Otoh, I regularly read this subforum post use anecdotes of filters with no published efficiency information whatsoever, raving about their appearance like perfectly straight pleating. Or being a reputable name brand like the OEMs, with no known efficiency spec. Personally I have no problem with either, simply using it as a perspective reference to subject at hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top