Donaldson P169071 vs. Fram XG8A

[GemStater]

Here's the scenario. I have both oil filters on hand, the Donaldson P169071 and the Fram Ultra XG8A. I will be breaking-in a freshly rebuilt big block soon. Out of these oil filters I want the one that will capture the smallest particle size. Donaldson's spec sheet says 99% @ 22 microns but doesn't specifically state what test method they're using. It also says Efficiency Beta 75 30 micron. Donaldson is non-responsive to my e-mail. https://shop.donaldson.com/store/ca...uctDetails-DCI/ProductDetails-DCI.jsp.1# Fram advertises 99%+ @ ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns. https://www.fram.com/products/consumer-products/oil-filters/fram-ultra-syntheticsup-sup-oil-filter/ So? Which one? Flip a coin or can someone contribute to the debate?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by GemStater

Donaldson's spec sheet says 99% @ 22 microns but doesn't specifically state what test method they're using. It also says Efficiency Beta 75 30 micron. Donaldson is non-responsive to my e-mail.

Beta 75 means 98.7% efficient (call it 99%). Obviously, Beta 75 at 30u isn't as good as 99% at 20u ... so their statements do not align.

 

[GemStater]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

Originally Posted by GemStater

Donaldson's spec sheet says 99% @ 22 microns but doesn't specifically state what test method they're using. It also says Efficiency Beta 75 30 micron. Donaldson is non-responsive to my e-mail.

Beta 75 means 98.7% efficient (call it 99%). Obviously, Beta 75 at 30u isn't as good as 99% at 20u ... so their statements do not align.

Right! What's weird is the old Amsoil EaO used to be rated at 98.7% @ 15 microns and it was accepted that Donaldson made many of those filters. If that's true, not sure why they're own top of the line filter would filter would be less efficient?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by GemStater

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

Originally Posted by GemStater

Donaldson's spec sheet says 99% @ 22 microns but doesn't specifically state what test method they're using. It also says Efficiency Beta 75 30 micron. Donaldson is non-responsive to my e-mail.

Beta 75 means 98.7% efficient (call it 99%). Obviously, Beta 75 at 30u isn't as good as 99% at 20u ... so their statements do not align.

Right! What's weird is the old Amsoil EaO used to be rated at 98.7% @ 15 microns and it was accepted that Donaldson made many of those filters. If that's true, not sure why they're own top of the line filter would filter would be less efficient?

Because Amsoil media might have been designed and made only for use on Amsoil branded filters.

 

[Job]

Cross XG8A and you get P550008. Maybe the other one is for ag equipment although don't know why they differentiate the two filters. I could guess like anyone I suppose. This one is 99 @ 40 microns using the single pass test I believe. But it is the cross for XG8A. I would use the XG and keep it simple.

 

[CT8]

You will never notice a difference between the filters unless one failed. The air filter is the filter to worry about if you need to worry about something.

 

[GemStater]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth

Cross XG8A and you get P550008. Maybe the other one is for ag equipment although don't know why they differentiate the two filters. I could guess like anyone I suppose. This one is 99 @ 40 microns using the single pass test I believe. But it is the cross for XG8A. I would use the XG and keep it simple.

Cross PH8A = P550008 = P169071 P550008 Media Type = Cellulose P169071 Media Type = Synthetic But yes, for lack of consistent info from Donaldson, looking like Fram it is...

 

[oldhp]

I would use the Donaldson for the initial fire up and buy a WIX Gold for the next 500 miles and then the Fram for the next 1000 miles.

 

[GemStater]

Originally Posted by oldhp

I would use the Donaldson for the initial fire up and buy a WIX Gold for the next 500 miles and then the Fram for the next 1000 miles.

That's an interesting formula. What's the logic behind it or is it a joke?

 

[kstanf150]

Originally Posted by GemStater

Originally Posted by oldhp

I would use the Donaldson for the initial fire up and buy a WIX Gold for the next 500 miles and then the Fram for the next 1000 miles.

That's an interesting formula. What's the logic behind it or is it a joke?

That maybe the strangest thing I've heard in a long time !!!

 

[GemStater]

Originally Posted by kstanf150

Originally Posted by GemStater

Originally Posted by oldhp

I would use the Donaldson for the initial fire up and buy a WIX Gold for the next 500 miles and then the Fram for the next 1000 miles.

That's an interesting formula. What's the logic behind it or is it a joke?

That maybe the strangest thing I've heard in a long time !!!

Well, the choice seems obvious. Just putting it out there to see if I was missing something but Fram seems to be the clear winner in this application, dollar-per-dollar... Donaldson P169071 - 99% @ 22 microns - $19.97ea WIX/NAPA Gold 51515 - 95% @ 20 microns - $4.75ea Fram Ultra XG8A - 99% @ 20 microns - $3.25ea

 

[oldhp]

Originally Posted by kstanf150

Originally Posted by GemStater

Originally Posted by oldhp

I would use the Donaldson for the initial fire up and buy a WIX Gold for the next 500 miles and then the Fram for the next 1000 miles.

That's an interesting formula. What's the logic behind it or is it a joke?

That maybe the strangest thing I've heard in a long time !!!

I was going by what he had on hand. Donaldson 1st because of quoted micron 22. Don't you always replace the oil filter after initial start up??? I would then change the oil again at 500 miles, hence the WIX. Lastly the FRAM XG because of it's filtering specs. This is what " I " would do with my $$$$ Big Block $$$$. Not a joke losing a freshly built engine because of scrimping oil / oil filter at start up.

 

[GemStater]

Originally Posted by oldhp

Originally Posted by kstanf150

Originally Posted by GemStater

Originally Posted by oldhp

I would use the Donaldson for the initial fire up and buy a WIX Gold for the next 500 miles and then the Fram for the next 1000 miles.

That's an interesting formula. What's the logic behind it or is it a joke?

That maybe the strangest thing I've heard in a long time !!!

I was going by what he had on hand. Donaldson 1st because of quoted micron 22. Don't you always replace the oil filter after initial start up??? I would then change the oil again at 500 miles, hence the WIX. Lastly the FRAM XG because of it's filtering specs. This is what " I " would do with my $$$$ Big Block $$$$. Not a joke losing a freshly built engine because of scrimping oil / oil filter at start up.

Sure! While there will be a certain amount of foreign material that washes out of a fresh rebuild and collects in the oil filter, I don't personally subscribe to the notion that this is significant enough to overwhelm the oil filter into bypass mode and wipe out the bearings. Seeing guys starting a fresh rebuild with bottom rung oil filters that have subpar filtering efficiency and then changing it right after break-in is nonsensical to me. In my view, when starting a new engine, it would be advantageous to use the the oil filter with the best possible filtering efficiency and continue using this same brand/model throughout interval change outs during the engines lifespan. In this point in time, subject to change, it's looking like the Fram XG8A is the best option for my application. My engine will run 1000-miles with the engine break-in oil and same top performing oil filter before the first change.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by GemStater

Seeing guys starting a fresh rebuild with bottom rung oil filters that have subpar filtering efficiency and then changing it right after break-in is nonsensical to me. In my view, when starting a new engine, it would be advantageous to use the the oil filter with the best possible filtering efficiency and continue using this this same brand/model throughout interval change outs during the engines lifespan.

Solid thinking.

 

[oldhp]

I've had two very good engine builder's build engines for me. Both use the same procedure. After first start up to break cam in (flat tappet) or just get engine up and running (roller lifter) checking oil pressure, leaks etc. They both say change the oil/oil filter. Cut open the filter to see what's going on. Nothing? Good. Run the engine, seating the rings, etc to 500'ish miles, change oil/oil filter. Cut open oil filter again. Still good? Now run engine like you're going to drive it. Change oil again at 1500'ish miles, cutting filter open again. Still all good? Good, run it. Both recommend and use WIX/NAPA Gold filters. It's your engine do as you please. I would not do that, but that's me. Happy Hot Rodding!!!

 

[GemStater]

Originally Posted by oldhp

I've had two very good engine builder's build engines for me. Both use the same procedure. After first start up to break cam in (flat tappet) or just get engine up and running (roller lifter) checking oil pressure, leaks etc. They both say change the oil/oil filter. Cut open the filter to see what's going on. Nothing? Good. Run the engine, seating the rings, etc to 500'ish miles, change oil/oil filter. Cut open oil filter again. Still good? Now run engine like you're going to drive it. Change oil again at 1500'ish miles, cutting filter open again. Still all good? Good, run it. Both recommend and use WIX/NAPA Gold filters. It's your engine do as you please. I would not do that, but that's me. Happy Hot Rodding!!!

Interesting protocols... A couple questions: 1) How many engines did these engine builders build for you? 2) During these protocols of changing oil filters, oil, cutting filters apart, etc., was there ever any problems found or interventions made on any of your engines based on the findings?

 

[oldhp]

1st shop built a 327+.030 and 350+030 2nd shop Mopar 440 +.040 All were balanced. The chevy's got a mild porting with 3 angle valve job, the Mopar same except 5 angle valve job. All Comp Cam valve trains. Nope, no problems found, all were flat tappet cams.