napa gold oil filters vs purolator classic filters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Well since I been on this forum I've never seen motorking post or respond to anything. Did he abandons ya'll or did he just recruit some of you to do his budding? Lol kidding sorta


He includes his email and phone number in his posts, if anyone has anything important they can email him with a response usually within a day. Nothing new comes up here so there's really not much reason to contact him.
 
Napa Gold Filters Are Some Of The Best Filters Out There For The Money...

Napa builds some great filters... I would stay away from purolater they have tear issues and other quality issues and they won't admit they have any problems which most know the truth anyway. I won't go back to purolater in my shop even if they started building quality filters again. Wix is way superior.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: sir1900
This is for your G I assume? We haven't seen any torn 14612 or equivalent, so it might be okay to use for a 5k OCI.

In fairness, I don't think we've seen any torn Valvoline filters, have we? The ones I've seen seem to be a little different than the Classic (i.e. how the QS is different than the Classic), so they may be okay.

Maybe I should contribute to the cause and cut one open, if I can do so without amputating something.
wink.gif



I've got a few Pennzoil PZ-37 in my stash that I will likely use when the first OC comes up for the Q. Unless I see problems with the 14612 and equivalent, I think they'll be okay for 5k.
 
Originally Posted By: Joenpb
Every thread ends in a Fram discussion. I'd guess most of the Fram fan boys were Puraltor fan boys, most every thread a couple of years ago ended up as a Puraltor discussion.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.....lol.


It is because everyone marches into threads and vomit the flavor of the month regardless of it even being made or suitable for the application. It happens with oil brands also.
 
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: Joenpb
Every thread ends in a Fram discussion. I'd guess most of the Fram fan boys were Puraltor fan boys, most every thread a couple of years ago ended up as a Puraltor discussion.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.....lol.


It is because everyone marches into threads and vomit the flavor of the month regardless of it even being made or suitable for the application. It happens with oil brands also.


This is absolutely what I've observed in the very short time I been here. Very true indeed. People wanna bombard every thread and try and cram their favorite flavor of the day down your throat. That's why they get the stern rejection they get for some.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy

I understand stand motorking has said that as I've gone back and read much discussion about it.
Still its him saying it and it not being published by FRAM. Anyway my intended point is nobody appears to know what micron FRAM filters to ultimately or at what %.


It's published on Fram's website. It's been discussed and hashed over many times that "greater than 20 microns" essentially means at 20 microns and above. Anyone with some mathematical logic knows that 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns, and as the particle size approaches 20 microns you can basically say "at 20 microns or larger".

And yes, the Ultra flows very well ... just like any full synthetic oil filter will. As mentioned before, the flow numbers WIX uses are nebulous at best ... nobody really knows what it means as there is missing information to nail down what that number means.


smile.gif
we can say it states that it filters. 99% at 20 microns just so we can get past that ok. Still we do not know what it filters to ultimately or at what percent cuz no other info is given. Except from some guy on bitog that represents fram. Ultimately meaning the smallest micron size it filters at what%. We know it can filter smaller than 20 microns to one degree or another but we don't know what it is or at what%. That's my point.
Wix/napa provides the info for their filters. They also provide the flow rate and its pretty straight forward.
I'm really just having fun with this although I do prefer wix because I know a little better what I'm getting for sure. Probably it mostly a principal thing with me
I'm not at all sold on the idea that filtration has to be quote that through. I don't doubt at all that the orange cans would see a guy through as long as anything else if changed appropriately. They also look tasty inside per the pic merk posted of the French donut lol.....peace brother
 
Last edited:
NOOOOOOOO! And I a frothing from the mouth with internet nerd rage!!!!!

This is the qualifer for the ToughGuard mentioned.
Quote:
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


So that 99% could be particles 21 microns, 50 micros, boulders and 99% of that is filtered which is definitely different than providing beta ratios as that literally means that 50% or 80% or 95% of 20 micron particles are captured . You can't confuse WIX's claim of B2/20 = 6/20. It tells you exactly that it captures 95% at 20 (and 50% at 6 microns). If it captures 99 at 25 microns, 99.9 at 30, 99.99 at 40 it could make the same "claim" as Fram for capuring 99% at 20 and greater.

Fram's 99% at at greater than 20 microns is not LOGICALLY the same as the idea that it captures B100=20 (aka 99% at 20 microns).

That being said, Toughguard and Ultra are fantastic filters. I just thing their marketing gets in the way of a good discussion. It could be 99% at 20 but they don't say that.

Beer anyone?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
NOOOOOOOO! And I a frothing from the mouth with internet nerd rage!!!!!

This is the qualifer for the ToughGuard mentioned.
Quote:
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


So that 99% could be particles 21 microns, 50 micros, boulders and 99% of that is filtered which is definitely different than providing beta ratios as that literally means that 50% or 80% or 95% of 20 micron particles are captured . You can't confuse WIX's claim of B2/20 = 6/20. It tells you exactly that it captures 95% at 20 (and 50% at 6 microns). If it captures 99 at 25 microns, 99.9 at 30, 99.99 at 40 it could make the same "claim" as Fram for capuring 99% at 20 and greater.

Fram's 99% at at greater than 20 microns is not LOGICALLY the same as the idea that it captures B100=20 (aka 99% at 20 microns).

That being said, Toughguard and Ultra are fantastic filters. I just thing their marketing gets in the way of a good discussion. It could be 99% at 20 but they don't say that.

Beer anyone?


Thank you. You worded that well.
 
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
NOOOOOOOO! And I a frothing from the mouth with internet nerd rage!!!!!

This is the qualifer for the ToughGuard mentioned.
Quote:
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


So that 99% could be particles 21 microns, 50 micros, boulders and 99% of that is filtered which is definitely different than providing beta ratios as that literally means that 50% or 80% or 95% of 20 micron particles are captured . You can't confuse WIX's claim of B2/20 = 6/20. It tells you exactly that it captures 95% at 20 (and 50% at 6 microns). If it captures 99 at 25 microns, 99.9 at 30, 99.99 at 40 it could make the same "claim" as Fram for capuring 99% at 20 and greater.

Fram's 99% at at greater than 20 microns is not LOGICALLY the same as the idea that it captures B100=20 (aka 99% at 20 microns).

That being said, Toughguard and Ultra are fantastic filters. I just thing their marketing gets in the way of a good discussion. It could be 99% at 20 but they don't say that.

Beer anyone?


Do we need to have this discussion again?? Really? How many times does this need to be refuted? Honestly it gets tiring to see this discussed over and over again.
 
Just having fun.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Do we need to have this discussion again??

Yes.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Really?

Really.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
How many times does this need to be refuted?


Until we get it right? It will fade when Fram updates their information and becomes explicit about their filtration. That is the problem when an agency or manufacturer uses ambiguous language. Apples = Apples

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Honestly it gets tiring to see this discussed over and over again.

Opinion. However, I never get tired of torn purolator filters pics.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
20.01 = greater than 20



Also capturing 99 40 micron items and missing that one 20 micron item is 99% at item greater than 20.

If they are saying that they capture 99% of material greater than 20 microns and air filters let pass 50 microns and smaller, then there is a lot of 49.99-25 micron size particles making up that 99% (especially if they are going by mass).

it is still not the same as a 100=20
 
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Just having fun.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Do we need to have this discussion again??

Yes.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Really?

Really.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
How many times does this need to be refuted?


Until we get it right? It will fade when Fram updates their information and becomes explicit about their filtration. That is the problem when an agency or manufacturer uses ambiguous language. Apples = Apples

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Honestly it gets tiring to see this discussed over and over again.

Opinion. However, I never get tired of torn purolator filters pics.


grin.gif
Lol, there's your challenge motorking. Whoever or wherever you really are?????.....maybe he's fram man. Nobody sees him until he decides.
Haha send the FRAM signal quick!!! And bring the fram mobile and robin too. The fram boys are running outa ideas.
 
I think I will buy a Wix sometime and cut it open to see for myself how the parts work together and the perceived quality. So far for the ones I have opened the Fram Ultra has the most beautiful element, while the Denso First Time Fit has the best all around design, construction, and quality. I just opened a used Fram Ultra, not so impressed as I was before looking at other's pictures. The adbv valve seals on the baseplate sort of funny I think. The nubs on the end cap center it,the baseplate holes are very close to the contact area where the adbv seals, and the surface isn't very smooth at the contact area. The valve seals well on the endcap side with a protrusion to center it. I don't like the baseplate side so much but I guess it works. The can was .013" which is probably OK, like the Purolator mid tiers, but others are thicker. Opening used filters is a mess. That's why no pictures, oil went into recycling jug and filters in bag they provide.
 
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
NOOOOOOOO! And I a frothing from the mouth with internet nerd rage!!!!!

This is the qualifer for the ToughGuard mentioned.
Quote:
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


So that 99% could be particles 21 microns, 50 micros, boulders and 99% of that is filtered which is definitely different than providing beta ratios as that literally means that 50% or 80% or 95% of 20 micron particles are captured . You can't confuse WIX's claim of B2/20 = 6/20. It tells you exactly that it captures 95% at 20 (and 50% at 6 microns). If it captures 99 at 25 microns, 99.9 at 30, 99.99 at 40 it could make the same "claim" as Fram for capuring 99% at 20 and greater.

Fram's 99% at at greater than 20 microns is not LOGICALLY the same as the idea that it captures B100=20 (aka 99% at 20 microns).

That being said, Toughguard and Ultra are fantastic filters. I just thing their marketing gets in the way of a good discussion. It could be 99% at 20 but they don't say that.

Beer anyone?


Ummmm ... you missed some logic here. If a filter takes out 99% at 20 microns then it will be taking out HIGHER than 99% of particles that are larger than 20 microns. All filters work this way. Some filters might do better down below the 20 micron particle size mark than others due to the media (ie, cellulose vs. synthetic). There is NO way a filter has worse efficiency for a larger particle size (ie, if a filter is 90% @ 20 microns, then it's got to be higher than 90% @ 30, 40, 50, etc microns).

The typical baseline ISO comparison is "xx% @ 20 microns". All filters are more efficient than xx% above 20 microns and less efficient than xx% below 20 microns, but all will have very similar efficiency vs particle size shaped curves if plotted and compared to each other.
 
Originally Posted By: Dallas69
Hey BigDaddy
You haven't been a member here long enough to be issuing challenges, my friend.


Chillax buddy, its all in fun. Besides I'm a consumer who has used many frams in the past. If a guy represents a company I've done business with and might consider doing so again, I don't need to fulfill some initiation period to question him.

And I'm goofing around and you do not really know who I am or what I do or what sorta qualifications I may have.

Be easy like big daddy easy is lol.
 
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
20.01 = greater than 20



Also capturing 99 40 micron items and missing that one 20 micron item is 99% at item greater than 20.

If they are saying that they capture 99% of material greater than 20 microns and air filters let pass 50 microns and smaller, then there is a lot of 49.99-25 micron size particles making up that 99% (especially if they are going by mass).

it is still not the same as a 100=20


They are saying that all particles that are 20 microns or larger are captured. Simple as that. That also means that for every 100 particles that hit the filter, only 1 will get through that is 20 microns or larger.

If any particle 20 microns or larger is getting through, it's most likely a 20 micron particle instead of a 50 micron particle.

Remember, the efficiency test is done per ISO 4548-12 which dictates what sized particles are used in the test. They can't fudge around that. Purolator also quotes ISO 4548-12 ... but what does WIX quote? They don't say ... humm, who knows HOW they do their efficiency testing?
whistle.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Carlostrece
NAPA Gold vs Platinum Oil Filter
Replies
8
Views
857
Carlostrece
Carlostrece
2011 Hyundai Elantra 1.8L Engine Oil Filter - Want a longer oil filter.
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
1K
ZeeOSix
S
napa filter was the wrong one,
Replies
12
Views
542
small block
C
AC Delco “Gold” series oil filters.
Replies
1
Views
410
notgetleft
ensoniqman
Napa dumping Wix as supplier?
Replies
12
Views
1K
4WD
Back
Top Bottom