Can this be found anywhere?
Published effeciency of Napa Platinum?
- Thread starter 2James1
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The WIX website is down right now, but I don't think they list it anyway ... must be "top secret", or not that impressive (?).
My guess is......its not that impressive.
The WIX website is down right now, but I don't think they list it anyway ... must be "top secret", or not that impressive (?).
My guess is......its not that impressive.
I would guess they don't like to publish the number because an extended OCI filter has to be a bit of a sieve to not clog on a very extended Syn drain.
So if a tester pops a fresh one out of the box, the filtration is probably very low.
I think these things only really start to filter past the 5,000 mile mark.
Which most people won't mind, as an excellent synthetic in a new engine is probably transparent on the dipstick until then anyway.
I just don't like the idea of wear metals passing until the filter is clogged enough to catch them.
So if a tester pops a fresh one out of the box, the filtration is probably very low.
I think these things only really start to filter past the 5,000 mile mark.
Which most people won't mind, as an excellent synthetic in a new engine is probably transparent on the dipstick until then anyway.
I just don't like the idea of wear metals passing until the filter is clogged enough to catch them.
Here is what they say:
WIX oil filters hold more than 45 percent more dirt than the leading national brand. We could stop here, but we’re sure you want to know why.
Oil filter effectiveness is measured three ways: particle size retention (filtration efficiency), dirt-holding capacity, and resistance to flow.
WIX has developed optimum particle size retention quality in filter media through extensive engine wear tests in the real world, at the race track and in the lab. In fact, WIX media in automotive full-flow oil filters traps and holds essentially all particles larger than 25 microns (a human hair is roughly 70 microns in diameter), while capturing a high percentage of even smaller particles.
The dirt-holding capacity of WIX filters is significantly larger than the minimum manufacturer requirements between oil changes, which provides you with added security that contaminants captured by the filter stay in the filter.
A low restriction to oil flow is also critical to protecting vital engine parts. All WIX full-flow oil filters for automotive and light truck applications use arch-pleated, prescription-blended media, which provides low initial restriction to oil flow – less than 2 psi pressure drop when filtering oil at a rate of 4 gallons per minute at normal operating temperatures.
WIX oil filters hold more than 45 percent more dirt than the leading national brand. We could stop here, but we’re sure you want to know why.
Oil filter effectiveness is measured three ways: particle size retention (filtration efficiency), dirt-holding capacity, and resistance to flow.
WIX has developed optimum particle size retention quality in filter media through extensive engine wear tests in the real world, at the race track and in the lab. In fact, WIX media in automotive full-flow oil filters traps and holds essentially all particles larger than 25 microns (a human hair is roughly 70 microns in diameter), while capturing a high percentage of even smaller particles.
The dirt-holding capacity of WIX filters is significantly larger than the minimum manufacturer requirements between oil changes, which provides you with added security that contaminants captured by the filter stay in the filter.
A low restriction to oil flow is also critical to protecting vital engine parts. All WIX full-flow oil filters for automotive and light truck applications use arch-pleated, prescription-blended media, which provides low initial restriction to oil flow – less than 2 psi pressure drop when filtering oil at a rate of 4 gallons per minute at normal operating temperatures.
A member on this forum has said it's 99% at 20um. I can't seem to find the data to back that though.
Originally Posted By: Falken
I would guess they don't like to publish the number because an extended OCI filter has to be a bit of a sieve to not clog on a very extended Syn drain.
But the XP has full synthetic media ... so by nature it is more free flowing than a cellulose media. I don't think it's any where near a "sieve".
The FRAM Ultra is rated at 99% @ 20 microns, and the Purolator Synthetic is rated at 99% @ 25 microns, so I would venture to say the Wix XP is right in there with those two filters also.
I would guess they don't like to publish the number because an extended OCI filter has to be a bit of a sieve to not clog on a very extended Syn drain.
But the XP has full synthetic media ... so by nature it is more free flowing than a cellulose media. I don't think it's any where near a "sieve".
The FRAM Ultra is rated at 99% @ 20 microns, and the Purolator Synthetic is rated at 99% @ 25 microns, so I would venture to say the Wix XP is right in there with those two filters also.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Falken
I would guess they don't like to publish the number because an extended OCI filter has to be a bit of a sieve to not clog on a very extended Syn drain.
But the XP has full synthetic media ... so by nature it is more free flowing than a cellulose media. I don't think it's any where near a "sieve".
The FRAM Ultra is rated at 99% @ 20 microns, and the Purolator Synthetic is rated at 99% @ 25 microns, so I would venture to say the Wix XP is right in there with those two filters also.
Exactly^
Originally Posted By: Falken
I would guess they don't like to publish the number because an extended OCI filter has to be a bit of a sieve to not clog on a very extended Syn drain.
But the XP has full synthetic media ... so by nature it is more free flowing than a cellulose media. I don't think it's any where near a "sieve".
The FRAM Ultra is rated at 99% @ 20 microns, and the Purolator Synthetic is rated at 99% @ 25 microns, so I would venture to say the Wix XP is right in there with those two filters also.
Exactly^
dnewton3
Staff member
Typically, Wix has been "whitewashing" all their data to the proverbial beta of "2/20=6/20" statement across the board.
If I look up the 51515, I see that same statement.
However, I see in the "51515XP" Wix XP line that they state "B2=20" ... That's absurdly silly. Clearly they don't edit/proof-read their site postings well. 50% at 20um? I'm sure it's a LOT better than that.
The same goes for the 51516 and 51348 variants.
Obviously Wix isn't checking their work ... their site data is flawed for the XP line.
If I look up the 51515, I see that same statement.
However, I see in the "51515XP" Wix XP line that they state "B2=20" ... That's absurdly silly. Clearly they don't edit/proof-read their site postings well. 50% at 20um? I'm sure it's a LOT better than that.
The same goes for the 51516 and 51348 variants.
Obviously Wix isn't checking their work ... their site data is flawed for the XP line.
I was told by Wix that XP/Platinum is 70 nominal Wix/Gold is 21 nominal.
That cannot be right cp3! The nominal spec is near worthless anyway (it's a one pass test showing the size of particle the filter collect 50% of on one pass thru the filter). 70 nominal is appalling. The XP should be at least as good as the Gold and if it filters most other syn filters, it should be significantly better. Are you sure it's not 7 microns nominal?
That is what he said. Also mentioned that beta was irrelevant with that type of filter.
Probably why I question the hype on the synthetic filters. That and the fact that, for some here, other filters at 99%@25 or 95%@20 would not be as good as the P1 yet the Purolator Synthetic is better? Not that I don't think they are good but for a normal/average drain interval it makes sense to me that they would not be as efficient, compromising efficiency to gain capacity.
I think Fram seems to have a good idea with the XG and the dual layer media.
Probably why I question the hype on the synthetic filters. That and the fact that, for some here, other filters at 99%@25 or 95%@20 would not be as good as the P1 yet the Purolator Synthetic is better? Not that I don't think they are good but for a normal/average drain interval it makes sense to me that they would not be as efficient, compromising efficiency to gain capacity.
I think Fram seems to have a good idea with the XG and the dual layer media.
Clearly, and sadly for Wix, he is a very uninformed employee. Don't know what it is but 70 nominal can be met by a 200 micron screen, for Pete's sake!
Not sure why you question the hype on the syns. Many of them are 99% at 20 um, some are 99% at 25 um. I don't know any full syns that are 95% at 20 um, as that is more or less within the range of what a standard cellulose fitler can do (92-95% range).
I don't dispute the P1's 99% @ 20 um is a good spec ( long with several other syn blend media premium filters like the M1, Bosch, etc). What sets the syns apart is their capacity.. which can be double the syn blends, or better, and flow. Capacity is useful for extended OCIs and flow is useful for avoiding bypass on cold starts and such.
IMO, the extra cost of the syns isn't particularly justifiable from the ROI POV unless you are going to take advantage of their extra capabilities in some way. If you plan up around a 10K OCI but want the metal comfort of a higher efficiency filter, a syn blend like the P1 is a great choice.
Not sure why you question the hype on the syns. Many of them are 99% at 20 um, some are 99% at 25 um. I don't know any full syns that are 95% at 20 um, as that is more or less within the range of what a standard cellulose fitler can do (92-95% range).
I don't dispute the P1's 99% @ 20 um is a good spec ( long with several other syn blend media premium filters like the M1, Bosch, etc). What sets the syns apart is their capacity.. which can be double the syn blends, or better, and flow. Capacity is useful for extended OCIs and flow is useful for avoiding bypass on cold starts and such.
IMO, the extra cost of the syns isn't particularly justifiable from the ROI POV unless you are going to take advantage of their extra capabilities in some way. If you plan up around a 10K OCI but want the metal comfort of a higher efficiency filter, a syn blend like the P1 is a great choice.
Beta is irrelevant?
I'm all for a good balance between flow and filtration, but 70 microns nominal + 'irrelevant beta ratio' is concerning. I just bought two Napa Platinums but I think I need some more information before I use them. No worries, I have a Fram XG in the queue.
I'm all for a good balance between flow and filtration, but 70 microns nominal + 'irrelevant beta ratio' is concerning. I just bought two Napa Platinums but I think I need some more information before I use them. No worries, I have a Fram XG in the queue.
I don't think you do Dan. They are oil filters, and they will filter your oil. Honestly, most of this stuff here is splitting hairs.
I'm just not buying into using them for normal intervals, that's all. More cost for unneeded capacity for most users and slightly less efficiency in some. Not the bargain of the century to me.
I don't for a second think spinning one of those on your car is going to cause anything close to a problem.
I'm just not buying into using them for normal intervals, that's all. More cost for unneeded capacity for most users and slightly less efficiency in some. Not the bargain of the century to me.
I don't for a second think spinning one of those on your car is going to cause anything close to a problem.
Yep, we are obviously splitting hairs here, but last count I had 7 oil filters in the queue for my Chevy; given the latest info, I'm not in a hurry to use the NPs over any of the others.
I'm certainly not saying I'll never use the NP filters - only that I'm leaning toward using the Fram XG in my stash first. I'm probably 2 months away from OC time, so I may change my mind again.
I'm certainly not saying I'll never use the NP filters - only that I'm leaning toward using the Fram XG in my stash first. I'm probably 2 months away from OC time, so I may change my mind again.
Wouldn't be a true BITOGer if you didn't!
Originally Posted By: cp3
That is what he said. Also mentioned that beta was irrelevant with that type of filter.
... that tech dept guy probably doesn't even know what beta ratio means. Of course the beta ratio is relevant, it's the only thing that tell you how efficient a filter is at filtering. You must have talked to one of sayjac's favorite PRO dudes.
That is what he said. Also mentioned that beta was irrelevant with that type of filter.
- Status
