Micron Ratings - Wix vs NAPA Gold

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

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.

Probably pretty close to that. I'm not certain that cummins not giving out any data means I can't trust the product, or that they have something to hide. You guys are more trusting than I am. I'm pretty skeptical of numbers printed on cardboard boxes anyway. Until I see spec's verified by independent 3rd party testing it s "claim". UD

 

[Triton_330]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

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.

Wix's cross reference filters for that Harley filter says they have a nominal micron rating of 5: http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=1721791 http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=632008 Of course, that's only nominal.

 

[Triton_330]

Well, for whatever reason, I still have not gotten a reply from either O'Reilly or NAPA. Only Wix themselves got back to me - which, is fine, considering they got straight to the point and clarified on record that their filters and the NAPA Golds are indeed the same. I just wish NAPA would have responded with a reason as to why their website doesn't use Wix's data for the NAPA Gold's filtration data.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Triton_330

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

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.

Wix's cross reference filters for that Harley filter says they have a nominal micron rating of 5: http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=1721791 http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=632008 Of course, that's only nominal.

Harley's infamous filter: https://www.harley-davidson.com/store/superpremium5-oil-filter---5-micron-pa-12-6379899a--1 And I quote ... "Utilizing advances in synthetic media technology, the SuperPremium Oil Filters are TEST-CERTIFIED to provide filtration to retain dust, soot and other solid matter with low internal pressure relief and anti-drain back valves. Low internal pressure relief and anti-drain back valves Chrome finish' Hey - it's "TEST-CERTIFIED" to provide filtration. Whoopeeee! IOW - it's a filter that acts like ... well .... a filter. Of course, no claim of WHAT test was run. Or what efficiency is enabled at the 5um claim. BTW - if the filter has "Low internal pressure relief", would that mean it goes into bypass frequently?????????????? Chrome! That makes it best! As I said - HD folks lap up that drivel by the bazillions. They have perfected marketing to the "n"th degree. at the moment, Wix site is down so I cannot see what you linked; I'll have to look at it later. Would not surprise me if it's changed; Wix data seems to be infinitely in flux from year to year.

 

[Triton_330]

Yeah, I'm a Yamaha guy myself, as is my father.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

at the moment, Wix site is down so I cannot see what you linked; I'll have to look at it later. Would not surprise me if it's changed; Wix data seems to be infinitely in flux from year to year.

Ah shoot, it is down. Well, here's O'Reilly's data on them, which is less specific than Wix's data, of course: https://www.oreillyauto.com/detail/wix-5...4836258?q=57148 https://www.oreillyauto.com/detail/wix-5...4836376?q=57348 Wix's data states the 5 micron rating is nominal, so...

 

[dnewton3]

Wix is back up. More hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo from them IMO. How can they state those two filters you linked are "2/20=6/20" and then call it "5um nominal"? 5 does not equal 6, after all. Most everyone accepts that "nominal" means 50%. How can you be "nominal" at 5um, but beta 2 at 6? The math does not work. They have changed their filters over the years. It used to be that their offering for the HD TC engines was the 51348 (equivalent to the MC 910). My point is that Harley calls their filter a "5um" filter, but never tells us what efficiency it offers at that particle size. Those who understand filtration know they are only telling 1/2 of the info we need to understand their filter performance. With rare exception just about any "normal" filter we can buy, even lowly filters, can be "5um" rated. Probably really bad efficiency at 5um, but they will catch a few in their life-cycle. Think of it this way; I can probably catch a few 100-mph fast balls from a major league pitcher. Not a lot; maybe a few out of 100 thrown. But I can claim to be a "100mph" catcher. Same goes for filters. Telling me a some arbitrary particle size means nothing unless you tell me how efficient you are at that size. I'd like to see the entire filter industry start rating automotive type filters at 2/20/75 (nom, decent, absolute). But they don't ask for my opinion.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Wix is back up. More hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo from them IMO. How can they state those two filters you linked are "2/20=6/20" and then call it "5um nominal"? 5 does not equal 6, after all. Most everyone accepts that "nominal" means 50%. How can you be "nominal" at 5um, but beta 2 at 6? The math does not work. They have changed their filters over the years. It used to be that their offering for the HD TC engines was the 51348 (equivalent to the MC 910). My point is that Harley calls their filter a "5um" filter, but never tells us what efficiency it offers at that particle size. Those who understand filtration know they are only telling 1/2 of the info we need to understand their filter performance. With rare exception just about any "normal" filter we can buy, even lowly filters, can be "5um" rated. Probably really bad efficiency at 5um, but they will catch a few in their life-cycle. Think of it this way; I can probably catch a few 100-mph fast balls from a major league pitcher. Not a lot; maybe a few out of 100 thrown. But I can claim to be a "100mph" catcher. Same goes for filters. Telling me a some arbitrary particle size means nothing unless you tell me how efficient you are at that size. I'd like to see the entire filter industry start rating automotive type filters at 2/20/75 (nom, decent, absolute). But they don't ask for my opinion.

The venue is oil contamination in an internal combustion engine, extending data on paper has no match to reality. There probably is not one 5 micron +/- 0.5 particle in any engine on the planet. Some are oblong, some are jagged little rocks, none are perfect spheres. Then there is what kind of particles, soft, hard, or what? 5 or 6 microns, it makes no difference here, empty data. IMHO.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The dust they use in efficiency testing isn't a perfect sphere either. A particle that's a weird shape still has an "effective diameter". Not "empty data" IMO.

 

[Triton_330]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

The dust they use in efficiency testing isn't a perfect sphere either. A particle that's a weird shape still has an "effective diameter". Not "empty data" IMO.

Agreed.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

The dust they use in efficiency testing isn't a perfect sphere either. A particle that's a weird shape still has an "effective diameter". Not "empty data" IMO.

It's empty data because the particle are varying more than that 1 micron, can't tell which are 5 or 6, except on paper. Like measuring .0001"'s with a Vernier caliper, maybe the readout says it, but the instrument itself is physically not that accurate. What's the effective diameter of a potato? the middle or the end or the long way? The question was why do they say 5 microns one place and 6 another. The machine may count and throw out data but it has no factual meaning at that resolution of 1 micron.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Depends on the machine and method used. If you go do some research you'll see they can measure partcles down in the nanometer range. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_counter

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

^^^ Depends on the machine and method used. If you go do some research you'll see they can measure partcles down in the nanometer range. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_counter

You and someone else used that same argument about engine bearing clearances. Doesn't matter the instrument, the things being measured are not that accurate. I worked with microns for many years and there is a difference between writing .001 mm on a paper and understanding what .001mm physically is. Nanofabrication has nothing to do with this topic. Odd shaped particles of unknown composition can't be measured to one micron accuracy when they vary more than that. You can put a nanometer resolution instrument on a bed pillow and it will sputter out a reading. Empty data.

 

[4WD]

The popular FU actually states > 20 microns - Why not state >/= ...?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

^^^ Depends on the machine and method used. If you go do some research you'll see they can measure partcles down in the nanometer range. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_counter

You and someone else used that same argument about engine bearing clearances. Doesn't matter the instrument, the things being measured are not that accurate. I worked with microns for many years and there is a difference between writing .001 mm on a paper and understanding what .001mm physically is. Nanofabrication has nothing to do with this topic. Odd shaped particles of unknown composition can't be measured to one micron accuracy when they vary more than that. You can put a nanometer resolution instrument on a bed pillow and it will sputter out a reading. Empty data.

I think the capability and accuracy of what can be measured today is much better than the "veneer caliper days" that you still live by.

 

[Triton_330]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

I think the capability and accuracy of what can be measured today is much better than the "veneer caliper days" that you still live by.

Exactly! I don't think he realizes we have tools these days that can measure down to sizes smaller than an electron. Now, I don't think anyone has or would ever need to use something that precise on a car engine, but nevertheless .001 mm (which is exponentially larger than an electron) is child's play to measure these days. EVEN IF engines aren't built to such precisely accurate dimensions - which goodtimes may very well be correct about - that DOESN'T make an oil filter measured at filtering 5 microns "empty data."

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

^^^ Depends on the machine and method used. If you go do some research you'll see they can measure partcles down in the nanometer range. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_counter

You and someone else used that same argument about engine bearing clearances. Doesn't matter the instrument, the things being measured are not that accurate. I worked with microns for many years and there is a difference between writing .001 mm on a paper and understanding what .001mm physically is. Nanofabrication has nothing to do with this topic. Odd shaped particles of unknown composition can't be measured to one micron accuracy when they vary more than that. You can put a nanometer resolution instrument on a bed pillow and it will sputter out a reading. Empty data.

I think the capability and accuracy of what can be measured today is much better than the "veneer caliper days" that you still live by.

It doesn't matter what technology is used to measure with. The object has to have the properties to enable the measurement.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

^^^ Depends on the machine and method used. If you go do some research you'll see they can measure partcles down in the nanometer range. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_counter

You and someone else used that same argument about engine bearing clearances. Doesn't matter the instrument, the things being measured are not that accurate. I worked with microns for many years and there is a difference between writing .001 mm on a paper and understanding what .001mm physically is. Nanofabrication has nothing to do with this topic. Odd shaped particles of unknown composition can't be measured to one micron accuracy when they vary more than that. You can put a nanometer resolution instrument on a bed pillow and it will sputter out a reading. Empty data.

I think the capability and accuracy of what can be measured today is much better than the "veneer caliper days" that you still live by.

It doesn't matter what technology is used to measure with. The object has to have the properties to enable the measurement.

You must think these high tech particle counters are just random number generators

 

[Triton_330]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

You must think these high tech particle counters are just random number generators

Random... ahhh yes. Random...

Click to reveal..

 

[goodtimes]

"You must think these high tech particle counters are just random number generators" You must think by getting the last word you are right. It is very simple to understand. The object has to be as accurate as the instrument or the measurement is meaningless. I already explained it several ways so one more time and you can get your last word in, and that means you're right.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

"You must think these high tech particle counters are just random number generators" You must think by getting the last word you are right. It is very simple to understand. The object has to be as accurate as the instrument or the measurement is meaningless. I already explained it several ways so one more time and you can get your last word in, and that means you're right.

If you think these particle counters are inaccurate random number generating junk then go dig up some proof and post the links. These machines have been used for decades in may facets of industry ... they wouldn't even exist if they they weren't accurate.