I ordered a case from Amazon. Came out to $4.33 per filter.
Beware a Wix with louvers?? C&P Virgin Wix ProTec PXL10332 - Toyota 90915-YZZN1 equivalent
- Thread starter FlyNavyP3
- Start date
I still think a machine punching holes is easier and better than these silly vents.
Thanks everyone for all the great analysis. I decided to make the permanent move to Pentius. I placed the Amazon order for two 12 packs of the PLXL filters. Will sell all my FRAM filters on an online marketplace. I no longer want to use defective filters that leak unfiltered oil.
Let us know how they look when they come in!!
I have said it many times, but still bears repeating, I won't ever use a louvered filter in any of my vehicles.
Doesn't make sense, I mean I get it - but if you can see the louvers are open, makes zero sense.
Makes perfect sense to me. You still only see half the louvers. Is that enough if the rest are closed? Probably with a PD oil pump, but I'm not doing it. More filters for you!
Premium Guard and, on occasion, Supertech, is all I will use now (unless OEM.)
In the photos most of the louvers are unfortunately not in very good focus. But it looks to me like there are alternating rows of louvers facing in opposite direction, making the rows looking away from the photographer look "closed". Is that the correct interpretation?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 726
What was the date code? The Ascent bubble point video has several good points. One is the XP bypass valve leaked. The Fram uses a cork to replace the bypass valve. Although that Fram was the good one with the gasket. The Boss did not show problems is another conclusion.
Was this filter made by Purolator?
Was this filter made by Purolator?
The Ascent ISO efficiency test was done without any kind of "cork" to replace the bypass valve. The efficiency test was performed on filters right out of the box like they are when installed on an engine. The bubble point test has nothing to do with the efficiency test. And the one XP that did leak during the bubble test wasn't the same exact filter that was efficiency tested, so nobody knows if the XP filter efficiency tested had a leaky bypass valve or not.
Last edited:
If the ones you can see are closed down, it's highly likely the ones pointing the opposite direction are also closed down the same amount.
With my iPhone I can zoom in really well and see badly formed louvers in the pics here. I can say from experience that in person it’s very easy to see closed or partially closed louvers. I inspect everything now no matter the brand before use.
Yes hard to photograph, very easy to see.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 726
I wasn’t talking about the efficiency test. As you know I have commented on the impossibility of using a cork in the assembled filter. So youare infirming me of things I know already. The points from Ascent are they can test a leaky bypass valve filter and it passes on to the efficiency testing, because they seal the end cap for the bubble point.
The purolator and Wix can’t use a cork, so the bubble point test, leading to an efficiency test, confirms the bypass valve doesn’t leak.
This may be an old enough filter that is a old type Wix.
As I've pointed out a few times before in other threads about the bubble point test, that test is really to verify the design and integrity of the media, not really to verify if the bypass valve is leaking. If it was to verify the bypass valve, then he would have kept the leaf spring with the bypass valve installed in the end cap somehow during the bubble test. There's actually a separate ISO test for the bypass valve performance ... that's ISO 4548-2, "Element by-pass valve characteristics". The way ISO 4548-2 is written, it only tests the actual bypass valve, not really any sealing integrity between a leaf spring and the end cap. If there's leakage there, it will show up as decreased filtering performance in the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test.
Sure, that's something that would be seen in the bubble test, like Andrew at Ascent pointed out. But even if that was seen, it can't determine if the other filter slated for the efficiency test is leaking or not. He also showed that when the leaky bypass valve on that filter was actuated a few times it stopped leaking for the most part in the bubble test. The bubble test is very low pressure too, so it's also possible that a bypass valve that doesn't show leakage in the bubble test could leak some in the efficiency test because the dP across the bypass valve is much higher in that test. If it leaks in the efficiency test, it's going to hurt the efficiency numbers, and the same is true about a leaky leaf spring to end cap interface.
The light test on the bypass valve on this filter in post 2 looks like it's not sealing very well ... probably a leaker.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 726
All hashed over already.The leaking bypass is an artifact of the bubble point. No one ever said the bubble point was designed to test the bypass valve. But it does as the test requires sealing to test the element.
I also said before maybe Fram makes a jig to hold the bypass on for the bubble point. Not likely.
It’s obvious probably to everyone a cut open filter used for bubble point isn’t the same one used for efficiency, which is not cut open.
The bubble point test is not designed, nor requires testing of the bypass valve to continue on to the ISO efficiency test - the bubble point test is only to test the filter media, nothing else. The bypass valve is tested in ISO 4548-2 as already mentioned. And that test doesn't say anything about testing any seal like a leaf spring to the end cap, so I doubt anyone actually does any kind of ISO testing to verify that seal. If the leaf spring "seal" leaks, it's going to be seen in the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test as lowered efficiency. Fram engineers who designed the OG Ultra used the leaf spring fiber seal in the end cap to make it high efficiency by preventing any dirty oil leakage past that sealing interface.