NAPA Gold vs Fram Ultra (efficiency)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patman

Patman

Staff member
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
22,249
Location
Guelph, Ontario
I should probably know these numbers off the top of my head but how do these two filters compare in terms of efficiency? I know the Ultra is built better and has a fully synthetic media, but the NAPA Gold does filter out 99% at 20 microns, and correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the same as what the Ultra claims?
 
Napa Gold is the same as WIX... so it's application specific. For example... the filter for my wife's v6 Fusion is 95% at 25microns. You can verify the efficiency for your specific application on the WIX website.
 
From the Wix website, for my Corvette the WL10290 claims a nominal rating of 21 microns. Am I to assume that means 99% efficient at 21 microns? And on the Fram site it claims
Quote
*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.
Am I to assume that's 99% at 20 microns?

So in other words, both are roughly the same in terms of filtering efficiency?
 
Yeah pretty much...

Wix jacked up their terminology in my opinion. Nominal is typically used for the 50 percent threshold. But in the case of Wix it clearly is not. My 57356 is supposedly nominal at like 21 microns. Yet Wix beta ratio clearly has it at 95 percent at 20 microns. Wix whitewashed their data about their filters years ago... It used to be specific information about each individual oil filter. Now it has been changed to 20/6=2/20... For all their regular black filters. I bet the filter media is possibly what it used to be... Based upon the *nominal* ratinga we see at times.
 
Last edited:
Some of the Napa Gold filters show 99% at 23 microns... but I don't know if that is all of them. Some have 15 micron nominal, some have 19, some 21, some 35. So who really knows? Does Wix even really know? All I do know is that all of the Napa Gold & Platinum filters I have had cut open look good with no damage, and there is no statistical difference between what the NG filters and any other filter brand I have used when looking at UOA data.
 
Originally Posted by Patman
From the Wix website, for my Corvette the WL10290 claims a nominal rating of 21 microns. Am I to assume that means 99% efficient at 21 microns? And on the Fram site it claims
Quote
*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.
Am I to assume that's 99% at 20 microns?

So in other words, both are roughly the same in terms of filtering efficiency?


Most WIX/NAPA Gold filters use to be rated at 95% @ 20u.

The WL10290 shows:
Beta Ratio: 2/20=6/20

Which means 50% @ 6u and 95% @ 20u.

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=2168037

And yes, "99% efficient for particles greater than 20 miocrons" essentially means "@20u". Remember all those debates and the simple answer was 20.00001 microns is greater than 20 microns. The fact that ISO 4548-12 defines efficiency as "greater than X microns" shows why Fram uses the same terminology.
 
Originally Posted by bbhero
Yeah pretty much...

Wix jacked up their terminology in my opinion. Nominal is typically used for the 50 percent threshold. But in the case of Wix it clearly is not. My 57356 is supposedly nominal at like 21 microns. Yet Wix beta ratio clearly has it at 95 percent at 20 microns. Wix whitewashed their data about their filters years ago... It used to be specific information about each individual oil filter. Now it has been changed to 20/6=2/20... For all their regular black filters. I bet the filter media is possibly what it used to be... Based upon the *nominal* ratinga we see at times.


WIX apparent is using one of the other definitions of "nominal efficiency". If you Google it, you'll see there is more than one definition which obviously makes it confusing.
 
I don't go by any nominal efficiency ratings. Though 50% with whatever the micron level is generally accepted, as noted it can be open to interpretation, vague. I go by thier beta here, which for my applications 95% @ 20um.
 
Originally Posted by das_peikko
Aren't you supposed to be comparing the NAPA Platinum to the FRAM Ultra? You know, Apples to Apples?

Platinum has horrible filtering performance compared to the Ultra (or NapaGold-Wix). Wix won't even admit what it is on their look-up spec page, choosing to keep it a secret. I think ZeeOSix asked them about it and they said 50% at 20 microns, not good. Toptierpao and ZeeOSix found it at https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4643465/Wix_XP_efficiency
 
Particles in our car engines, coming in with the air or made from combustion, or metals in the engine, aren't perfect spheres. They are spears and potatoes and jagged rocks.
 
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Platinum has horrible filtering performance compared to the Ultra (or NapaGold-Wix). Wix won't even admit what it is on their look-up spec page, choosing to keep it a secret. I think ZeeOSix asked them about it and they said 50% at 20 microns, not good. Toptierpao and ZeeOSix found it at https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4643465/Wix_XP_efficiency


I have both a Platinum and an Ultra cut open. I like the way the Platinum is constructed better.
 
What oil-film-movies is not considering and leaving out, is that some vehicles prefer the Platinum to the Ultra. (For instance) Many GMs are not friendly to Ultras. They bark at cold startup and oil pressure at standing red-light idle is noticeably worse.

Folks
Buy the oil filter your vehicle likes. Don't always consider the one you like. (Hint) We are not our vehicle.

PATMAN
Your post right above mine disappeared. Not fair man. You moderators can delete and we can't.
Helen is going to yell at you Patman. Play by our rules sir.
 
Last edited:
Triple_Se7en, Fram Ultra has great flow rates, so it can't "bark" or not be "friendly" to GM.
Your account is completely fictional.
 
Originally Posted by das_peikko
Aren't you supposed to be comparing the NAPA Platinum to the FRAM Ultra? You know, Apples to Apples?


No, because as mentioned before the NAPA Gold is more efficient than the NAPA Platinum.

Also, the main reason I posted this is because those are the two choices for my Corvette. I'd like to use the Ultra, but can't find the new XG12060 just yet, so in the meantime I'm using the NAPA Gold 100290. But it also got me to thinking that if Walmart has upped the price of the Ultra to almost $10 but I can still get the NAPA Gold for about $7.50, and if they both have the same filtering efficiency, then what benefit is it for me to use the Ultra in this case? (unless I leave it on for two intervals, but I won't do that on the Corvette until the powertrain warranty is up)
 
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en

PATMAN
Your post right above mine disappeared. Not fair man. You moderators can delete and we can't.
Helen is going to yell at you Patman. Play by our rules sir.


I have no idea what you are talking about, I did not delete anything. In fact I don't delete any posts on this forum.

You can apologize now...
 
Originally Posted by Patman
I have no idea what you are talking about, I did not delete anything. In fact I don't delete any posts on this forum.

Maybe I'll swear and see if I can get you to delete it.
wink.gif


In all seriousness, though, I think Snagglefoot mentioned a potential NAPA Canada filter sale in the promotions area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
Fram Oil Filter Anatomy & Testing Videos
Replies
1
Views
240
dnewton3
Robvette
Cut Open: 17 µm Purolator ONE vs 20 µm Fram Titanium
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
garageman402
Z
Fram ultra old vs new efficiency?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
53' Stude
A
is fram's extra guard 95% efficiency worrysome? or is it fine for low OCI?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
5K
ZeeOSix
T
Oil Filter Media Efficiency Spec's
Replies
15
Views
3K
RagnarokCamaro
Back
Top