Originally Posted By: sayjac
First I've ever read of using Wix's average efficiency of the majority of it's filters as reasoning to determine the absolute efficiency of every oem with non published specs.
While it may be 'likely' Wix tested the 910 in the range mentioned, other than Amsoil's ISO test of the 820S there remains no published specs of Motorcraft filters.
And if 'wasting money' and simply meeting or exceeding oem was the primary consideration for Wix filter specs, then as an example, the 57356 used on majority Hondas would be in the ~65-67%@20um range, based on Amsoil's results of the Honda A02. It's also rated 95%@20um.
Further if that is the logic for all Wix's efficiency specs, then Wix's XP synthetic filter line using either the spec from the CS dept would not be in line with that explanation. As currently the XP's info from that source is below the FL820S Amsoil's ISO published testing result. It seems odd that Wix wouldn't use the very same reasoning for efficiency and promotion of their 'premium' synthetic filter line. That would seem to be paradoxical to the 'meet or exceed' every oem rating.
Little doubt Wix majority 95%@20um is a safe efficiency to meet or exceed most any oem, but I can't assume every oem made is in that range because that is the spec Wix uses for the majority of it's standard line.
'Imo', it's more likely the topic'd 910S is in a similar range to the published results of the FL820S than using Wix average efficiency spec of all it's filters.
They have different design criteria for the XP line, but please, continue your babbling. Nobody is basing anything on just Wix. It is context and circumstantial evidence from "multiple sources" (you missed that?) but by your post I'm guessing that is beyond your reasoning capability.