Originally Posted By: Motorking
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: WeenieHutJr
After my stash of Purolators run out im thinking of switching to Fram or Napa.
On all the cars I maintain I use conventional 5k or Syn 7k.
Am I better off using Silver/Tough Guard every oil change or Gold/Ultra every other?
Also is the Gold / Ultra equal?
Not knowing what application you have is somewhat limiting here. Also, not knowing if you have warranty concerns is also a limiting factor in recommendations here.
If you have a known sludger engine (some Toy's, Sat SL2, etc) then I'd caution against longer O/FCIs, and worry about capacity. However, if you have decent vehicles in good shape, then your projected use (5k dino or 7k syn) is a walk in the park to any filter. You don't "need" a top-tier filter for such use. There are plenty of examples where "normal" filters have gove 10k, 15k, 20k miles. While not advisable for everyone, these examples show there is PLENTY of potential that goes untapped in a "normal" filter.
I would also say that 7k miles on syn is likely a big waste too, because there's a whole lot of used potential in conventional oils as well.
Buy what you "want", but that does not mean you "need" those products. If you REALLY want to know what is a good decision, then do some experiments where you track used oil analysis and PCs and do filter disections.
No - the Gold/Wix is not typically considered the equivilant to the FU; that would be the Platinum/XP products (although brace yourself for the onslaught of comments about efficiency, because Wix site is, shall we say, lacking in credible info at this point ....)
Hi,
The WIX XP is not equal to the FRAM Ultra. Major differences in both construction (two layers of synthetic media vs single layer in WIX), Capacity (WIX XP in the PH8A size is 22 grams, FRAM Ultra in the same size is 32 grams.)Price (FRAM Ultra is always lower)Efficiency (FRAM Ultra 99%@20 microns, WIX is ???)
Curious where you got the holding capacity specs for the Wix XP? I'm not familiar with any statment they have regarding holding capacity, but perhaps I've missed it? Can you provide a link to that reference you make please? I'm not saying you're wrong; I just want to see it for myself.
Futher, I'm not saying that I (me personally) believe that the XP is equivilant to the FU. I'm stating that this is Wix's marketing position. Wix has positioned as such, so I answered in that manner. The same can be said of the newer Puro Syn filter; it, too, is marketed at the top-tier level and so the FU would be it's competition. All the major brands now have a marketing plan that exhibits a "good; better; best" platform.
Does not change my position though; most folks over-buy in some form of mis-informed thought process that "more" must always be "better", when there is no data to support such a conclusion from real world data, and there is no credible SAE study to affirm such. Buying an FU and using it for 5k miles is not going to appreciably alter the wear of any engine versus using the OCOD (Orange Can of Desire) for that same FCI. This is because there is a HUGE difference between what a filter is capable of doing, and what it actually has to achieve, in the engine bay. The filter is only one entity of three in the overall program of controlling wear (the others being the OCI duration and the add-pack response in developing the tribochemical barrier).
Over-paying for filters is no more advisable than over-paying for lubes. Many people think that if they but the "best" they'll get the best. But what they most often actaully get is wasted potential that is never realized.
