Oreilly's Promotion: $3 off K&N and Wix XP

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Yet becuse of a conversation with someone at Wix probably reading from a sheet it gets derided on BITOG as a less than high quality filter.


You really don't believe WIX's own specs and think the XP is more efficient than the maker of the filter claims? That's pretty funny actually - a symptom of fanboyism perhaps? There have been many guys on this board that have called WIX about it. Like I said, if it was a "typo" then WIX would have said so and corrected it by now. But even after people have asked them about it for a year they still hold fast to their 50% @ 20 microns. IMO, WIX is paranoid to make a long OCI filter that is efficient for fear it will load up and cause oil starvation like Amsoil had a while back with one of their filer lines. Only 1 out of 1000 people even know what a micron is and how it is associated with a filter's efficiency, so manufactures can safely stay nebulous about the real efficiency (like Purolator is now doing too) because they know the majority will take their word that it's a "great filter".

Originally Posted By: Trav
Someone posted a UOA from an engine running the XP that was just as good as those with the Fram or any other, if its so bad why aren't the wear metals elevated?
If rocks are going through the filter surely the bearings must be scored to blazes.


I don't think UOAs give much insight to how well oil filters perform - that is what a test like ISO 4548-12 is for. If there was major wear, it's possible the filter has caught most of those particles and therefore they never show up in the UOA.

Originally Posted By: Trav
How large a particle is considered detrimental? Before answering take the size of a micron, the bearing clearance and oil film thickness into account.


If you do some research, there are many technical papers about wear vs particle size that say particles that are 25 microns and less do the most wear damage.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

That's a great price for Wix XP. Makes them the same price as some standard Wix filters

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: Trav
The XP is a good filter, I don't buy into this efficiency hype tossed around on this board, in theory it all sounds good but in real world on the engine it seems almost meaningless.


Trav, Trav, Trav,
Now you've done it and have angered the paid "Fram Gods" on this site. Perhaps somebody on this site will eventually say that the Fram emperor has no clothes....
Nah, probably not. I'm sure all the hawkers who don't even have an genuine automotive job will still stick up for them.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If you do some research, there are many technical papers about wear vs particle size that say particles that are 25 microns and less do the most wear damage.


If that's the case the Fram is also suspect if it is not as efficient with particles under 20 micron which causes the most wear. How efficient is it at 10 micron, 5 micron?

Like i said lets see some proof of a bad XP or an engine damaged by one. I use Fram Ultra also i just don't drink the Kool aid.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If you do some research, there are many technical papers about wear vs particle size that say particles that are 25 microns and less do the most wear damage.


If that's the case the Fram is also suspect if it is not as efficient with particles under 20 micron which causes the most wear. How efficient is it at 10 micron, 5 micron?

Like i said lets see some proof of a bad XP or an engine damaged by one. I use Fram Ultra also i just don't drink the Kool aid.


The Ultra, per what Memphis901 has found out if I recall correctly is about 80% @ 5 microns - if true, that is pretty impressive IMO. If the WIX XP is 50% @ 20 microns, then it's probably only about 5~10% @ 5 microns ----> Memphis901 Post

I've never claimed a low efficiency filter will "damage" an engine. Even if it was causing more wear, you'd never notice it driving around. You'd have to tear the motor down and do a super accurate measurement and inspection of all the parts to verify the wear level. I bought an old used truck once that seemed to run fine, but the rod and main bearing were basically shot. An engine basically has to literally blow-up before most people even know something isn't right inside. Running a low efficiency oil filter will never "blow-up" an engine. It might case some extra wear over it's life time, but nobody would even know it.

Just based on what I've researched (not Kool-Aid drinking), I'd rather use a more efficient oil filter than one rated at 50% @ 20 microns. I really don't care if someone chooses otherwise, or if they even use an oil filter at all.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Here's another data point for you - the Purolator PureOne which is a non-synthetic media rated at 99.9% @ 20 microns (back when the thread below appeared).

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1566061/1

In summary, Purolator Engineers said their PureOne efficiency vs particle size broke down as follows:

50% = B2 = below 5 µm
90% = B10 = 6.69 µm
95% = B20 = >8 µm
98.7% = B75 = >11 µm
99% = B100 = 11.42 µm
99.5% = B200 = >13 µm
99.9% = B1000 = >15 µm

So it was probably running at around 80% @ 6 microns if you interpolate the above data. Basically at the same level as the Ultra claim.

Give WIX a call and see if they will even tell you want the XP's efficiency is at 5 microns.

 

[Trav]

It doesn't seem to make much difference at all, these high numbers are mostly all advertising hype. Going back to the OLD VW beetle air cooled engines they didn't use a filter at all just a screen yet survived with bearings and camshaft intact.
Healthy engines do not shed metal particles large enough to damage the engine when they do the engine is usually damaged and needs a rebuild.
Even years ago when SMC ate camshaft lobes we didn't find crank bearing failures associated with those particles, a simple cam, lifter and timing chain replacement kept them going another 100K or more.

I asked you before where these particles are coming from but no answer. The oil pump is always pre filter so it is subjected to every particle yet its very rare to find scored oil pump rotors or housings (some made of aluminum) and they run tight clearances.

Filters are great for catching large particles and deposits that find their way past the pump but for real low micron efficiency a bypass filter is needed not a full flow.
I read the post like this one and can only conclude that you and a couple of other posters have fallen for the meaningless advertising hype Fram is using to entice customers into choosing their filter over others on the shelf.
If you want to run the Fram believing it is better for anything other than long OCI that's fine but the engine will live just as long with an XP, Gold, MC, Mobil 1 the orange can or any other filter that the media remains intact.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3424589/5

 

[jeepxj96]

Hi everyone, been lurking for a while but first post.. interested in this xp/platinum efficiency debate.

The Fleetguard pdf below represents single beta ratio the opposite of how it is normally interpreted:
https://www.cumminsfiltration.ca/pdfs/product_lit/asia_pacific_brochures/3301016A.pdf

"A Beta Ratio may be given for a filter as B10 = 50.
(Depicted in this way on many filters)
This simply means that the Beta Ratio for 10 micron equals
a ration of 50.
Now divide the ratio, in this case 50 into 100, ie. equals 2.
Subtract the answer, in this case 2 from 100, the answer is 98.
This filter is 98% efficient at removing 10 micron particles."

Viewing the xp/platinum beta ratio listed as B2=20, it could imply 95% efficient for 2 micron particles (although likely TOO good to be true, not sure if 2 micron particles are even tested!)

 

[Trav]

They do list beta ratio as B2=20 for the XP but they wont stop the fan boys from telling you to call Wix for "proof" that the XP is nothing more than a rock catcher.
On the other hand a UOA isn't a good indicator of filter performance because most of the particles are trapped in the filter. The filter is a rock catcher but catches particles measured in PPM, sound right to me.

You just started another $hit storm my friend. Buckle up and hang on, its going to be a fun ride.

 

[901Memphis]

Motorking posted the 80% efficiency at 5 microns for the Ultra originally on this forum.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
They do list beta ratio as B2=20 for the XP but they wont stop the fan boys from telling you to call Wix for "proof" that the XP is nothing more than a rock catcher.


You do know what B2=20 means, right? Maybe not.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
It doesn't seem to make much difference at all, these high numbers are mostly all advertising hype. Going back to the OLD VW beetle air cooled engines they didn't use a filter at all just a screen yet survived with bearings and camshaft intact.


If you talk to anyone who owned one of those air cooled VWs back in the day, they'd tell you it was amazing if they make it to 80K miles before needing a rebuild.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Healthy engines do not shed metal particles large enough to damage the engine when they do the engine is usually damaged and needs a rebuild.


They do shed metal particles, and most are sub 20 microns. That's why using a more efficient filter would help trap more of those sub 20 micron particles. As said before, even if an engine is a little more worn, it probably couldn't be detected from it's running. You'd have to tear it down and inspect and measure to see the difference.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Even years ago when SMC ate camshaft lobes we didn't find crank bearing failures associated with those particles, a simple cam, lifter and timing chain replacement kept them going another 100K or more.[/quote

I asked you before where these particles are coming from but no answer. The oil pump is always pre filter so it is subjected to every particle yet its very rare to find scored oil pump rotors or housings (some made of aluminum) and they run tight clearances.


I'd bet the oil pump has more wear than other parts of an engine, just from the fact it is moving the most unfiltered oil. Oil pumps do wear out in some cases.

Originally Posted By: Trav
I read the post like this one and can only conclude that you and a couple of other posters have fallen for the meaningless advertising hype Fram is using to entice customers into choosing their filter over others on the shelf.
If you want to run the Fram believing it is better for anything other than long OCI that's fine but the engine will live just as long with an XP, Gold, MC, Mobil 1 the orange can or any other filter that the media remains intact.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3424589/5


Of the filters you list you show above, I'd use any of them except the XP because they are all at least 95% @ 20 microns. Yes, I choose to use more efficient oil filters, and as mentioned before I don't care what others use - not my car it's going on. Obviously others like high efficiency filters too and that's why they choose what they do.

You make it sound like there is something wrong or negative about using a more efficient oil filter. What's the deal with that?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jeepxj96
Hi everyone, been lurking for a while but first post.. interested in this xp/platinum efficiency debate.

The Fleetguard pdf below represents single beta ratio the opposite of how it is normally interpreted:
https://www.cumminsfiltration.ca/pdfs/product_lit/asia_pacific_brochures/3301016A.pdf

"A Beta Ratio may be given for a filter as B10 = 50.
(Depicted in this way on many filters)
This simply means that the Beta Ratio for 10 micron equals
a ration of 50.
Now divide the ratio, in this case 50 into 100, ie. equals 2.
Subtract the answer, in this case 2 from 100, the answer is 98.
This filter is 98% efficient at removing 10 micron particles."

Viewing the xp/platinum beta ratio listed as B2=20, it could imply 95% efficient for 2 micron particles (although likely TOO good to be true, not sure if 2 micron particles are even tested!)


In the WIX world, B2=20 means 50% (ie, B2) @ 20 microns. Just look at the table in the upper RH corner of the PDF link you provided. The 1st column is the beta ratio, and the 2nd column is the corresponding efficiency. That's how WIX expresses beta ratio.

It's pretty obvious that it could never be 95% @ 2 microns.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

If you talk to anyone who owned one of those air cooled VWs back in the day, they'd tell you it was amazing if they make it to 80K miles before needing a rebuild.

You make it sound like there is something wrong or negative about using a more efficient oil filter. What's the deal with that?


80K for an air cooled rear mounted engine with limited air flow is better than good.
Nothing wrong with using a more efficient filter I never said it was. You haven't presented anything other than Fram marketing and your opinion.

There is no point going any further with this, I asked for proof the XP was no good and evidence of engine damage caused by them and you come back with nothing just the same old song and dance as usual.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

If you talk to anyone who owned one of those air cooled VWs back in the day, they'd tell you it was amazing if they make it to 80K miles before needing a rebuild.

You make it sound like there is something wrong or negative about using a more efficient oil filter. What's the deal with that?


80K for an air cooled rear mounted engine with limited air flow is better than good.
Nothing wrong with using a more efficient filter I never said it was. You haven't presented anything other than Fram marketing and your opinion.


High efficiency oil filters isn't anything new and marketed by way more companies than one.

Originally Posted By: Trav
There is no point going any further with this, I asked for proof the XP was no good and evidence of engine damage caused by them and you come back with nothing just the same old song and dance as usual.


If you would have comprehended what I said, you would understand that the "proof" would need some very controlled use and measurements of motors. Said many times that even if more wear was caused it wouldn't be detectable from the guy behind the wheel, but rather contorted inspections and measurements.

You use what you want, and others will use what they want. I really don't care what filter (or anything else for that matter) you use.

 

[goodtimes]

I wish Toyota would provide some efficiency data, I sure like the filters, other than Amsoil's graph number from 2011 of one test filter. Efficiency is nice, but if the filter has other problems it tends to ruin that parade. I am pretty sure Toyota knows what they arte doing, probably more than Fram and Purolator combined when it come to engineering.
I read on one of the bulletins Beta ratio to percent is found by subtracting one from the number, then diving by the original number. so Beta ratio of 2 means 2-1=1, 1 divided by 2 is 1/2 or 50%. At a certain micron level, whatever is given. Sorry for the high math. B 10 is 10-1=9, 9/10 or 90%.

 

[bbhero]

Zee0six and Trav. You two are both very, very smart when it comes to aspects involved with vehicle maintainance. I always read what both you all post due to how knowledgeable you both are. Zee I don't think or believe for a millisecond that Trav has any problem with comprehension. And Trav you know that proving problems would take a very tightly controlled test and tear down which really hasn't been performed as far as we know.

Again, you both are right up there in terms of know how, knowledge and experience. It's all good to agree to not agree. You both have made very valid points. I say thank you to you both for all your knowledge shared on here. You guys are both kicking tail good.

 

[jhellwig]

Why does everything become a fram argument?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I read on one of the bulletins Beta ratio to percent is found by subtracting one from the number, then diving by the original number. so Beta ratio of 2 means 2-1=1, 1 divided by 2 is 1/2 or 50%. At a certain micron level, whatever is given. Sorry for the high math. B 10 is 10-1=9, 9/10 or 90%.


Handy table.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Quote:
I asked for proof the XP was no good ...


Just to clarify, I never said the XP was "no good". I'm just pointing out what the efficiency is per WIX themselves. If someone doesn't mind using a lower efficiency oil filer then go for it.

Lot's of people like using a higher efficiency filter, and there's nothing wrong with that either - their choice also. If everyone feels good about their choice, than that's all the matters.