Hello everyone . By bitgo members and testing do my bitgo member . Fram ultra old with wire mesh and royal purple oil filter was cleared winner but this test when it test the oil filter capacity it loss with every one and when test for efficiency better 21-31 it loss with boss being clear winner for that. What other member think about it.
Brands ranks video test wix xp royal purple and purolater boss results shocking
- Thread starter RaRa
- Start date
Say what?
I agree made by Mann and Hummel with this testing and what see here and boss vs wix xp different holding capacities so I believe wix xp and purolater boss is not same filter media because there filter media color boss is more white and wix xp and Napa it pale (yellow tint) white.
Que the positive displacement/differental pressure/restriction comments...
I am confused as to how they got the Purolator Boss performing better than Royal Purple. From reading this forum, I thought the consensus was that the old style Fram Ultra was the best, followed by the Royal Purple. I remember the Purolator Boss being well behind both of them in the Ascent Filtration testing..
Now this contradicts that.
Now this contradicts that.
Actually RP is Champ Labs (First Brands), the other 3 are all Mann. Still scratching my head at how well the Boss did, they actually aren’t rated that high.
Royal purple 99% at 25 microns and boss that he tested pbl 10241 is 99% at greater then 46 microns base tech sheet by purolater. I am still in shock with results.but this video give ideas that wix xp and Napa and boss is made by Mann and Hummel but they might using different synthetic materials.
Does it really matter? I buy Fram or ST filters and replace every 5K oil change. Have 8 vehicles with no issues.
Yup very simple....never had an issue with a Fram Oil Filter since 1968....ST is good also..
Weren't there Bosch filters with efficiencies at ~99% at 10 microns?
If so, I want that media.
If so, I want that media.
I was under the impression (from years on BITOG) that Wix XP and Napa Platinum were the same filter and that they had low efficiency. I guess I'll just have to remember that this test would simulate extreme conditions and that almost any decent oil filter will perform well in a well maintained (clean) engine.
I have no problem running Fram, ST, Motorcraft, etc...in my vehicles for the 5 to 7K OCI's that I do. I still avoid Purolator's entry level filters because of the 'tearing' in the past. I am liking the Pentius PLXL7317's that I bought on Amazon based on their weight, construction and price (I haven't used one yet to cut open).
I have no problem running Fram, ST, Motorcraft, etc...in my vehicles for the 5 to 7K OCI's that I do. I still avoid Purolator's entry level filters because of the 'tearing' in the past. I am liking the Pentius PLXL7317's that I bought on Amazon based on their weight, construction and price (I haven't used one yet to cut open).
Of course, you can't talk about oil filters in operation without talking about all those things. Anyone here should know that, lol.
Comparing the XP and Platinum in this test, they both show a similar PC result and are worse efficiency than the other two filters in the test. I'm looking at the 21-38u particle count range. I'd ignore the other PC size ranges for this comparison. Too bad there wasn't PC data below 20u, and if an ISO 4406 PC was done there should have been particle counts at 4, 6, 14 and 21 microns.
This test doesn't give an actual ISO 4548-12 efficiency comparison like Ascent's testing did. It only gives a comparison of filtering performance between these four filters base on a PC.
^^^ Referencing the Wix XP vs the NAPA Platinum PC. The particle counts between the two could be slightly different for 21u and above because of what was mentioned in the video about the bypass valve on the Platinum to be a little strange in its operation. Could be it wasn't sealing as well as the bypass valve in the XP, even though they are the same. Maybe the PC counts of 21u and above would have been closer if indeed the bypass valve in the Platinum wasn't acting strange. 
BTW - The ISO 4406 particle count of "21 Microns" means it's measuring all particles regardless of size of 21u and above. That's why it would have been nice to see what the PC data was all the way down to 4u like the typical ISO 4406 data table below - then you could get even a better comparison of filtering efficiency. So in the example below, the "4 Micron" count of 2446.7 (per mL of oil) contains all the 4u particles and above, which also includes the 6, 14, 21, 38 and 70+ size particles. The "21 Micron" count of 38.6/mL means it contains all particles of 21u and above, not just the particles that are 21u in size.
BTW - The ISO 4406 particle count of "21 Microns" means it's measuring all particles regardless of size of 21u and above. That's why it would have been nice to see what the PC data was all the way down to 4u like the typical ISO 4406 data table below - then you could get even a better comparison of filtering efficiency. So in the example below, the "4 Micron" count of 2446.7 (per mL of oil) contains all the 4u particles and above, which also includes the 6, 14, 21, 38 and 70+ size particles. The "21 Micron" count of 38.6/mL means it contains all particles of 21u and above, not just the particles that are 21u in size.
Similar threads
- Locked