Content is not mine
https://youtu.be/dwfTC1H1poQ
https://youtu.be/dwfTC1H1poQ
Napa Gold 1334 & Platinum 41334 Cut Open
- Thread starter SlavaB
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
Originally Posted by postjeeprcr
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
1334?!?
Is that the 7317 Fram comparison filter??
Is that the 7317 Fram comparison filter??
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by postjeeprcr
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
And now that they're owned by Mann & Hummel, pretty soon they'll have all the Purolator issues too. That is the cross reference for the Fram PH/TG/XG7317 & 6607, common to Nissan, Honda, etc.
Originally Posted by postjeeprcr
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
And now that they're owned by Mann & Hummel, pretty soon they'll have all the Purolator issues too. That is the cross reference for the Fram PH/TG/XG7317 & 6607, common to Nissan, Honda, etc.
Quote
…..And now that they're owned by Mann & Hummel, pretty soon they'll have all the Purolator issues too.
Beyond pure speculation do you have proof of this? Or any 'significant' evidence that it has occurred since the acquisition? I haven't seen it in personal use, or as posted on this board.
Quote
That is the cross reference for the Fram PH/TG/XG7317 & 6607, common to Nissan, Honda, etc.
It is? Afaik the topic filters are x refed to the 9688/3593a, 14459 size. Based on my observation of this board folks generally seem pretty happy with the newer designed 5/1334 especially those that would use them in Hyun/Kia applications. Best data point info on the Hyun/Kia OEM puts those in same range as other Asian oems, not highly efficient.
As for efficiency of the NP/XP been beaten to death here. Don't like the Wix answer, use something else. As reference though, in my observation based on thier appearance many here like the made in China filters that either have no efficiency info or just hearsay info.
As for vid, dude that makes them still doesn't comprehend that number of inlet holes irrelevant to flow. Apparently doesn't understand that as long as inlet area equal to inner diameter area of block mounting stud, all that's needed. I'd bet all the filters he dissects for his yt's meet that criteria.
…..And now that they're owned by Mann & Hummel, pretty soon they'll have all the Purolator issues too.
Beyond pure speculation do you have proof of this? Or any 'significant' evidence that it has occurred since the acquisition? I haven't seen it in personal use, or as posted on this board.
Quote
That is the cross reference for the Fram PH/TG/XG7317 & 6607, common to Nissan, Honda, etc.
It is? Afaik the topic filters are x refed to the 9688/3593a, 14459 size. Based on my observation of this board folks generally seem pretty happy with the newer designed 5/1334 especially those that would use them in Hyun/Kia applications. Best data point info on the Hyun/Kia OEM puts those in same range as other Asian oems, not highly efficient.
As for efficiency of the NP/XP been beaten to death here. Don't like the Wix answer, use something else. As reference though, in my observation based on thier appearance many here like the made in China filters that either have no efficiency info or just hearsay info.
As for vid, dude that makes them still doesn't comprehend that number of inlet holes irrelevant to flow. Apparently doesn't understand that as long as inlet area equal to inner diameter area of block mounting stud, all that's needed. I'd bet all the filters he dissects for his yt's meet that criteria.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by postjeeprcr
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
It is proprietary when your competition boldly advertises efficiency spec's that you can't match ... when your competition says 99 % , it would be silly to openly advertise anything less.
Fram Ultra :
2-ply synthetic, metal-screen-reinforced media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
Originally Posted by postjeeprcr
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
It is proprietary when your competition boldly advertises efficiency spec's that you can't match ... when your competition says 99 % , it would be silly to openly advertise anything less.
Fram Ultra :
2-ply synthetic, metal-screen-reinforced media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
Originally Posted by geeman789
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by postjeeprcr
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
It is proprietary when your competition boldly advertises efficiency spec's that you can't match ... when your competition says 99 % , it would be silly to openly advertise anything less.
Fram Ultra :
2-ply synthetic, metal-screen-reinforced media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
I don't think "cant" has anything to do with it. Not like they don't have the resources, haven't had time to catch up or they are making something complex and hard to figure out. IF they wanted Fram Ultra or Royal Purple numbers they could have it to you within a few months. They have addressed this and simply believe there is a compromise between efficiency and ability to reach high capacity without jeopardizing getting clogged (going into bypass with real extended intervals. Now we all know there are many synthetic media filters that claim to go 15-25k miles with 99% efficiency at 20 microns with no chance of malfunctioning BUT Wix (when Wix was actually Wix) had no reason or history of compromising quality(not to mention the regular Wix has normal efficiency numbers) so its hard to believe they just arbitrarily have inferior efficiency numbers to even its own lessor cheaper filter with no real basis. Its basically a reliability feature for extended use and most people should be using a regular wix. I got that info from the horses mouth but that was back when Wix was Wix. I just don't buy the filter lol. I will use a regular Wix if the price is right. If I'm trying to do extended intervals on a fleet diesel work truck accumulating 60k miles a year or a tractor I might reconsider.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by postjeeprcr
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
It is proprietary when your competition boldly advertises efficiency spec's that you can't match ... when your competition says 99 % , it would be silly to openly advertise anything less.
Fram Ultra :
2-ply synthetic, metal-screen-reinforced media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
I don't think "cant" has anything to do with it. Not like they don't have the resources, haven't had time to catch up or they are making something complex and hard to figure out. IF they wanted Fram Ultra or Royal Purple numbers they could have it to you within a few months. They have addressed this and simply believe there is a compromise between efficiency and ability to reach high capacity without jeopardizing getting clogged (going into bypass with real extended intervals. Now we all know there are many synthetic media filters that claim to go 15-25k miles with 99% efficiency at 20 microns with no chance of malfunctioning BUT Wix (when Wix was actually Wix) had no reason or history of compromising quality(not to mention the regular Wix has normal efficiency numbers) so its hard to believe they just arbitrarily have inferior efficiency numbers to even its own lessor cheaper filter with no real basis. Its basically a reliability feature for extended use and most people should be using a regular wix. I got that info from the horses mouth but that was back when Wix was Wix. I just don't buy the filter lol. I will use a regular Wix if the price is right. If I'm trying to do extended intervals on a fleet diesel work truck accumulating 60k miles a year or a tractor I might reconsider.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by geeman789
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by postjeeprcr
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
It is proprietary when your competition boldly advertises efficiency spec's that you can't match ... when your competition says 99 % , it would be silly to openly advertise anything less.
Fram Ultra :
2-ply synthetic, metal-screen-reinforced media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
It still baffles me that Fram still hasn't updated this little piece of info to indicate actual Ultra models. I realize this has been pointed out by many but it still seems odd to me...Z had some what of an explanation but I cant remember his exact words.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by postjeeprcr
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
B2=20 is what WIX said the XP is, and the Platinum is the same filter under the NAPA brand.
I emailed WIX recently and asked what the beta ratios were for the XP filter and they said they do not release those.
LoL, yeah I wonder why. I called them not too long ago and asked, and they told me that info was "propriatary". Since when is a filter's efficiency a secret to the consumers?
It is proprietary when your competition boldly advertises efficiency spec's that you can't match ... when your competition says 99 % , it would be silly to openly advertise anything less.
Fram Ultra :
2-ply synthetic, metal-screen-reinforced media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
It still baffles me that Fram still hasn't updated this little piece of info to indicate actual Ultra models. I realize this has been pointed out by many but it still seems odd to me...Z had some what of an explanation but I cant remember his exact words.
Originally Posted by geeman789
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
Originally Posted by RD_3
It still baffles me that Fram still hasn't updated this little piece of info to indicate actual Ultra models. I realize this has been pointed out by many but it still seems odd to me...Z had some what of an explanation but I cant remember his exact words.
Yeah, it's not as direct as it could be. They are being lazy and trying to cover all 3 filter models (EG, TG and XG) with one statement.
I think Fram's statement in the quote above for the XG is wrong, because if you look at the statement for the EG and TG filters they both says:
"FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."
That Fram is trying to say with that statement is:
For the EG they used filter models: PH8A, PH3387A and PH4967
For the TG they used filter models: TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967
For the XG they used filter models: XG8A, XG3387A and XG4967
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
Originally Posted by RD_3
It still baffles me that Fram still hasn't updated this little piece of info to indicate actual Ultra models. I realize this has been pointed out by many but it still seems odd to me...Z had some what of an explanation but I cant remember his exact words.
Yeah, it's not as direct as it could be. They are being lazy and trying to cover all 3 filter models (EG, TG and XG) with one statement.
I think Fram's statement in the quote above for the XG is wrong, because if you look at the statement for the EG and TG filters they both says:
"FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."
That Fram is trying to say with that statement is:
For the EG they used filter models: PH8A, PH3387A and PH4967
For the TG they used filter models: TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967
For the XG they used filter models: XG8A, XG3387A and XG4967
Originally Posted by stanlee
I don't think "cant" has anything to do with it. Not like they don't have the resources, haven't had time to catch up or they are making something complex and hard to figure out. IF they wanted Fram Ultra or Royal Purple numbers they could have it to you within a few months ...
True enough. You get it. I get it ... they COULD , but have chosen not to for probably for very valid engineering reasons.
But when the average consumer sees " 99 % efficient ... " , you better not put anything less than that on your box, or the average consumer won't buy it. Saying that the filter is LESS EFFICIENT ... but has greater capacity to enable longer OCI's without clogging etc MEANS NOTHING to that average consumer.
I don't think "cant" has anything to do with it. Not like they don't have the resources, haven't had time to catch up or they are making something complex and hard to figure out. IF they wanted Fram Ultra or Royal Purple numbers they could have it to you within a few months ...
True enough. You get it. I get it ... they COULD , but have chosen not to for probably for very valid engineering reasons.
But when the average consumer sees " 99 % efficient ... " , you better not put anything less than that on your box, or the average consumer won't buy it. Saying that the filter is LESS EFFICIENT ... but has greater capacity to enable longer OCI's without clogging etc MEANS NOTHING to that average consumer.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by geeman789
But when the average consumer sees " 99 % efficient ... " , you better not put anything less than that on your box, or the average consumer won't buy it.
That's why a lot of manufactures only put "99% efficient" with no associated micron size on the box or on their website.
But when the average consumer sees " 99 % efficient ... " , you better not put anything less than that on your box, or the average consumer won't buy it.
That's why a lot of manufactures only put "99% efficient" with no associated micron size on the box or on their website.
I think the Platinums make a good spin-on trans filter. Subaru was wise enough to use a trans case-mounted filter but considers the OEM to be a "lifetime service unless the filter is physically damaged or the transmission fails". No thanks, I'll pass on calling it a lifetime filter. The Platinum is plenty efficient to catch trans stuff, and the syn media means I'll do 50k FCIs with them. 41334 is actually the correct filter for the 4EAT.
One thing to note, seen here. If your app has a thread end bypass on the Gold, you will lose that feature going to the Platinum. I've bought 4 or 5 different filter numbers with thread-end in Gold but dome end in Platinum. Wonder why they re-engineered it for a media change?
One thing to note, seen here. If your app has a thread end bypass on the Gold, you will lose that feature going to the Platinum. I've bought 4 or 5 different filter numbers with thread-end in Gold but dome end in Platinum. Wonder why they re-engineered it for a media change?
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I think the Platinums make a good spin-on trans filter. Subaru was wise enough to use a trans case-mounted filter but considers the OEM to be a "lifetime service unless the filter is physically damaged or the transmission fails". No thanks, I'll pass on calling it a lifetime filter. The Platinum is plenty efficient to catch trans stuff, and the syn media means I'll do 50k FCIs with them. 41334 is actually the correct filter for the 4EAT.
One thing to note, seen here. If your app has a thread end bypass on the Gold, you will lose that feature going to the Platinum. I've bought 4 or 5 different filter numbers with thread-end in Gold but dome end in Platinum. Wonder why they re-engineered it for a media change?
After pulling the 4EAT can filter on my Subie at 375,000km... It was still plenty clean. The aftermarket filters are absolutely horrible in comparison. So back on went the updated OEM filter and a new pan filter, after I did a few pan drops with a cheapo oil filter. Good for another 350,000km.
I think the Platinums make a good spin-on trans filter. Subaru was wise enough to use a trans case-mounted filter but considers the OEM to be a "lifetime service unless the filter is physically damaged or the transmission fails". No thanks, I'll pass on calling it a lifetime filter. The Platinum is plenty efficient to catch trans stuff, and the syn media means I'll do 50k FCIs with them. 41334 is actually the correct filter for the 4EAT.
One thing to note, seen here. If your app has a thread end bypass on the Gold, you will lose that feature going to the Platinum. I've bought 4 or 5 different filter numbers with thread-end in Gold but dome end in Platinum. Wonder why they re-engineered it for a media change?
After pulling the 4EAT can filter on my Subie at 375,000km... It was still plenty clean. The aftermarket filters are absolutely horrible in comparison. So back on went the updated OEM filter and a new pan filter, after I did a few pan drops with a cheapo oil filter. Good for another 350,000km.
I will take flow on the synthetic Wix filter over absolute filtering anytime. It is a wire mesh backed synthetic media filter and the rest of the filter is made of high quality components. If you think about how many passes a filter receives of the full complement of oil in the engine during one minute, I really don't care if it takes ONE extra pass to catch the extra stuff is has supposedly allowed through the first time. What I do want is high flow before anything along with a high quality filter media backed up by a metal screen. I DO NOT want a cheap restrictive media that could result in my filter bypassing under high RPM use. So when I drop the hammer and the motor instantly pulls to 6500 rpm... that is what I want on my engine. Don't really care about arbitrary ISO tests.
- Status
