Micron Ratings - Wix vs NAPA Gold

Triton_330

Thread starter
Messages
780
Location
Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Sayjac
As for the Wix/(Napa Gold), whether it's 95%@20um as the betas say or 99%@21um either works fine for me. It is the first time I've seen the latter reported though.
Because WIX has now adopted the "99% @ xx microns" statement instead of the "xx% @ 20 microns" statement. Everything seems better when it's at "99%". grin
I honestly don't see why you'd rather have "xx% @ 20 microns" instead of "99% @ xx microns." It makes more sense from both a scientific and pragmatic perspective to list "99% @ xx microns" because with that you're being told: "Essentially every particle this size gets filtered." From there, you can guess/estimate how much it filters at 20 microns, or any number of microns. Furthermore, the NAPA website states: "Our HD Oil Filters Feature a Cellulose/Poly Media w/ Contaminant Holding Capacity That Out Performs Many of Our Top Competitors w/ Contaminant Removal as Small as 8 Micron." Sure, it doesn't say the percentage, but my educated guess is that it filters anywhere from 35% to 50% @ 8 microns.
 
Messages
26,465
Location
PNW
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Sayjac
As for the Wix/(Napa Gold), whether it's 95%@20um as the betas say or 99%@21um either works fine for me. It is the first time I've seen the latter reported though.
Because WIX has now adopted the "99% @ xx microns" statement instead of the "xx% @ 20 microns" statement. Everything seems better when it's at "99%". grin
I honestly don't see why you'd rather have "xx% @ 20 microns" instead of "99% @ xx microns." It makes more sense from both a scientific and pragmatic perspective to list "99% @ xx microns" because with that you're being told: "Essentially every particle this size gets filtered." From there, you can guess/estimate how much it filters at 20 microns, or any number of microns.
I like the "xx% @ 20 microns" data point because IMO it gives a better feel for how well the filter is removing the particles that cause the most wear (25 microns and smaller). But in any case, the comparison point needs to be consistent/standardized so it's easier to compare filter efficiency performance.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Anytime a filter company gives you only HALF the answer, that ought to tell you how little they really care about informing you. What do we have here, like 4 or 5 people that have contacted Wix, and each one gets a different answer ... ???? The more finite you try to nail down an answer, the worse they get. I asked the girl on the phone once, calling her out point blank as I could hear her typing my question into a computer and then regurgitating it back (stumbling over the words I might add ...), and asked for the direct Tech Line. "No." was the only answer I got, and she hung up. Like I said; Wix filters are good but their CS S-U-C-K-S big time!
 

Triton_330

Thread starter
Messages
780
Location
Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I like the "xx% @ 20 microns" data point because IMO it gives a better feel for how well the filter is removing the particles that cause the most wear (25 microns and smaller). But in any case, the comparison point needs to be consistent/standardized so it's easier to compare filter efficiency performance.
But Wix does list their filtration efficiency for their standard filters at a micron level below 25. Sure, their XP is a different story, but as we've been told by Wix before, it gets more efficient as more dirt gets trapped, like any filter does. So, at least for all their conventional OCI filters, they do list the efficiency below 25 microns. That being said, I agree with your latter statement that it would be nice if ALL filter companies adopted a standard... HOWEVER, if they did, I personally would still want to know the 99% micron rating anyway.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Anytime a filter company gives you only HALF the answer, that ought to tell you how little they really care about informing you. What do we have here, like 4 or 5 people that have contacted Wix, and each one gets a different answer ... ???? The more finite you try to nail down an answer, the worse they get. I asked the girl on the phone once, calling her out point blank as I could hear her typing my question into a computer and then regurgitating it back (stumbling over the words I might add ...), and asked for the direct Tech Line. "No." was the only answer I got, and she hung up. Like I said; Wix filters are good but their CS S-U-C-K-S big time!
But wouldn't listing different ratings for specific filters be more honest than giving an "across the board" rating for all the filters? Am I incorrect to assume that a dinky little 51348 is most likely going to have a different rating than a medium sized 51372 or a 51515, which are most likely going to have a different rating than a gigantic 51087 or 51773, even if they use the same media? If I'm wrong, and the size of filter shouldn't or doesn't change the filtration efficiency of filters using the same media, then yeah, I would have to agree with you that getting all these different answers is confusing.
 
Messages
1,806
Location
Houston, Texas
The efficiency numbers depend on the flow rate used to test the filter. For example: Filter A has 1X media area and is tested @ 1gpm Filter B has 2X Media area and is tested @ 2gpm Filter C has 4X media area and is tested @ 4gpm All three filters should demonstrate the same beta ratios in the multipass test.
 
Messages
26,465
Location
PNW
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
But Wix does list their filtration efficiency for their standard filters at a micron level below 25. Sure, their XP is a different story, but as we've been told by Wix before, it gets more efficient as more dirt gets trapped, like any filter does.
The WIX efficiency numbers are probably per ISO 4548-12 even though WIX will not tell you - they claim it's "proprietary" - I say they are hiding something if they are not using the current ISO 4548-12 test standard. But if they are using ISO 4548-12 you'd think they would be proud to say so. If per ISO 4548-12 then the low efficiency is after it's been loaded up over the duration of the test, just like any other tested filter per ISO 4548-12. WIX won't tell you that because they want to try and give someone who calls a "reason /excuse" why their efficiency is lower than other full synthetic oil filters. If they are not using ISO 4548-12 ("proprietary"? - hardly), then who knows what test procedure they are using and how the results correspond to ISO 4548-12. They may be jacking up their efficiency numbers by using some non-standard test procedure.
 
Messages
1,129
Location
Virginia, USA
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I like the "xx% @ 20 microns" data point because IMO it gives a better feel for how well the filter is removing the particles that cause the most wear (25 microns and smaller).
thumbsup I agree .... The efficiency data at 20 microns should be available on the filter box or on the filter company's website.
 

Triton_330

Thread starter
Messages
780
Location
Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Zee - I was thinking Wix is headed here - ISO Cleanliness codes WIX ISO Cleanliness Codes
I'm both impressed and disappointed at the same time. That's a pretty precise and unique way of explaining micron filtration... But it strays so far from the path that we're used to (xx% @ xx microns).
 
Messages
1,806
Location
Houston, Texas
Follow the money trail. If they are using a test dirt with 3 particle sizes and particle counters that yield counts at each of the particle sizes, they could complete the test in 1/3 the time. M&H is all about money.
 
Messages
26,465
Location
PNW
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Zee - I was thinking Wix is headed here - ISO Cleanliness codes WIX ISO Cleanliness Codes
I'm both impressed and disappointed at the same time. That's a pretty precise and unique way of explaining micron filtration... But it strays so far from the path that we're used to (xx% @ xx microns).
The upside of using a Cleanliness Code is it gives 3 data points to somewhat define the efficiency curve. The downside is it uses relatively large divisions in the particle size groups, so the accuracy/resolution of the data is somewhat "degraded" IMO.
 
Messages
14,517
Location
The Old North State
Quote:
.... The efficiency data at 20 microns should be available on the filter box or on the filter company's website.
That would be nice. However that thought would have to include ALL the OEM filter manufacturers too. That's not going to happen as they keep that information proprietary. So using that standard, that would/should make ALL the OEM possibly substandard filters too? Then there's the many off shored made in China filters now regularly posted here that publish NO efficiency data. The comments I read most with dissections are, 'pleats are straight', 'look well made' and 'I'd use them'. Based on those comments, there's no real concern about knowing efficiency of those filters. And that's from members that regularly read here. The general public in my observation, has even less concern about knowing filter efficiency. So as said in first post here, not much of use going to be gleaned from Wix cs. I'm satisfied Wix and Napa Gold are the same, in my experience the quality of the filters has been good. Until and unless quality changes I'll continue to use them with confidence.
 
Messages
4,272
Location
Ca.
Cummins makes its own media and filters and has the unique StrataPour Venturi that has an internal bypass using stacked discs that they claim scrubs down to 5 microns. No 45458-12 I can find anywhere, or iso codes, and can only find a video based claim of 5 microns. So its junk and they are liars then right ? UD
 
Messages
1,129
Location
Virginia, USA
Originally Posted By: Sayjac
Quote:
.... The efficiency data at 20 microns should be available on the filter box or on the filter company's website.
That would be nice. However that thought would have to include ALL the OEM filter manufacturers too. That's not going to happen as they keep that information proprietary. So using that standard, that would/should make ALL the OEM possibly substandard filters too? Then there's the many off shored made in China filters now regularly posted here that publish NO efficiency data. The comments I read most with dissections are, 'pleats are straight', 'look well made' and 'I'd use them'. Based on those comments, there's no real concern about knowing efficiency of those filters. And that's from members that regularly read here. The general public in my observation, has even less concern about knowing filter efficiency. So as said in first post here, not much of use going to be gleaned from Wix cs. I'm satisfied Wix and Napa Gold are the same, in my experience the quality of the filters has been good. Until and unless quality changes I'll continue to use them with confidence.
Well, I'm not concerned about WIX/NAPA Gold filters either ... The filtering efficiency for the filter I use for my Elantra (51334) is 95% @ 20 microns, per WIX website and a representative over the phone. That is good enough as far as I'm concerned. However, I don't see why I should use a filter like WIX XP with such low efficiency when there are filters with much better numbers. I have used filters with lower efficiency numbers, and with those filters the info was obtained easily; that is, it was not hidden from me by the company. And the efficiency data should be available for any customer who wants it. Not providing that data makes it look like they are trying to hide that a particular filter has media which filters poorly. And just like there are long-time members who are, as you say, not really concerned about efficiency data, there are also many long-time members who do care about how well their filters capture particles at 20 microns (that is, they care about how well a filter does its job).
 
Messages
26,465
Location
PNW
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Cummins makes its own media and filters and has the unique StrataPour Venturi that has an internal bypass using stacked discs that they claim scrubs down to 5 microns. No 45458-12 I can find anywhere, or iso codes, and can only find a video based claim of 5 microns. So its junk and they are liars then right ? UD
5 microns at what efficiency? Any filter will catch some level of 5 micron particles, but some much better than others.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Cummins makes its own media and filters and has the unique StrataPour Venturi that has an internal bypass using stacked discs that they claim scrubs down to 5 microns. No 45458-12 I can find anywhere, or iso codes, and can only find a video based claim of 5 microns. So its junk and they are liars then right ? UD
5 microns at what efficiency? Any filter will catch some level of 5 micron particles, but some much better than others.
Yup - reminds me of the old Harley claim of their 5-um rated filter for the TC engines. But the uninformed HD faithful lapped that up like kittens at the milk bowl.
 
Messages
4,272
Location
Ca.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Cummins makes its own media and filters and has the unique StrataPour Venturi that has an internal bypass using stacked discs that they claim scrubs down to 5 microns. No 45458-12 I can find anywhere, or iso codes, and can only find a video based claim of 5 microns. So its junk and they are liars then right ? UD
5 microns at what efficiency? Any filter will catch some level of 5 micron particles, but some much better than others.
Good question - they don't tell you squat. UD
 
Messages
4,272
Location
Ca.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Cummins makes its own media and filters and has the unique StrataPour Venturi that has an internal bypass using stacked discs that they claim scrubs down to 5 microns. No 45458-12 I can find anywhere, or iso codes, and can only find a video based claim of 5 microns. So its junk and they are liars then right ? UD
5 microns at what efficiency? Any filter will catch some level of 5 micron particles, but some much better than others.
Yup - reminds me of the old Harley claim of their 5-um rated filter for the TC engines. But the uninformed HD faithful lapped that up like kittens at the milk bowl.
The Harley Crowd drinks more cool aid than the population of Jonestown. This product is pretty unique however. UD
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,120
Location
Tennessee
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Cummins makes its own media and filters and has the unique StrataPour Venturi that has an internal bypass using stacked discs that they claim scrubs down to 5 microns. No 45458-12 I can find anywhere, or iso codes, and can only find a video based claim of 5 microns. So its junk and they are liars then right ? UD
5 microns at what efficiency? Any filter will catch some level of 5 micron particles, but some much better than others.
At 100% efficiency most likely. There is a world out there aside from the full flow multi pass test results on filter boxes. ALL particles larger than 5 microns are caught if the pores are all smaller than 5 microns.
 
Top