Toughguard vs wix

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll stand by what I posted in this thread early on when it was first posted. That includes but not limited to it's similar sourcing imo of now proven bogus information about XP using combo valves. Also why I put the 'alleged' unsourced/unnamed/undocumented not independent 'confirmation' of XP efficiency in the same category.

Want to dispute Wix's published beta's, provide the lab name, the documented test procedures used, and publish the information with signed name and/or company, in a format where it can be sent to Wix for them and others to view. Then it becomes an authoritative link that can be verified and tested.

So stevenh (and dnewton's) point in this thread resurrection is well taken with me. He was asked to provide a link to the mk 80%@20um claim in the ng v classic thread and did so here.

Lastly IMO, as illustrated in this thread, this is why some frequenting this board now take umbrage, some more vocal than others, with some statements made here. Want to provide information about products of your representation, no problem. Providing information about competitors products that is unsubstantiated, undocumented and/or in conflict with published information, not so much.
 
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All the many threads on efficiency and no one verifies the Wix data is from the same standard test? Good point. Threads out the window. From the talk I assumed it was. Fram Ultra is tops for the money. That stainless steel screen backed synthetic media does it. Verified test used too. Score one free filter for me.


Actually it is a mute point across all filter thread comparisons because Fram, WIX, Tearolator all "hide" some part of their efficiency. So it is an Apples to Umbrella to Spoon comparison.

Wix hides their test procedure. Do you make the jump that it is ISO-4548-12?

Fram does not describe how it calculates 99% (as the ">" metric is not use in the ISO 4548-12 standard. Do you make the jump that Fram is not padding their 99% with large particles to get the average up? Also Fram only list three models "and similar filters" for that 99%
Purolator only tests one filter.Do you make the jump that it is uniform across filters.


At least Fram and Purolator reference the ISO 4548-12 test specification as the basis for their efficiency claims. IMO, once any filter manufacturer references the test spec used, I don't see how they could "hide some part of their efficiency". Once they say the efficiency is "xx% @ y microns" or "xx% for particles >y microns" per "Test Spec A", they have made a claim that can be compared to an industry test standard for pass/fail criteria.

Since WIX doesn't say what test specification they are basing their efficiency claims on, who knows the real pedigree of their numbers? As I mentioned above, WIX could be using some other test spec than the ISO 4548-12. If it's an old test spec that makes their filters look better than what they would be under ISO 4548-12, then why would WIX want to change the test method? It would also be very expensive for them to retest all their filters to get the ISO 4548-12 test data. Nobody forces these filter manufacturers to use a certain efficiency test spec. It may be WIX's way of "messing with the numbers". Maybe I'll email or call WIX and see if they will tell me what test spec they base their efficiency claims on.

The whole Fram efficiency spec of "for particles >20 microns" has been beat to death on this chat board. I don't need to explain in depth again why I think this is basically saying "@20 microns and greater" (ie, 20.01 microns is still >20 microns). I see no real way how Fram could "pad their 99% with large particles to get the average up" is they are referencing the ISO 4548-12 test spec. The statement literally says that if you had 100 particles that were all >20 microns (20.01 and greater fits into that), than only 1 of them will get through the media. It doesn't say what size that 1 particle will be, but it will most likely a 20 micron particle.

Fram's efficiency statement on their website says:
"FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."

At least Fram bases their efficiency spec on the average of 3 different sized oil filters. Purolator only references their gigantic L30001 or PL30001 in their efficiency claim. Probably because a gigantic oil filter like that will yield a better efficiency in the ISO 4548-12 test. It has been theorized that a much larger filter with more media surface area will help the efficiency rise during the ISO 4548-12 test, and that's why Purolator only references their 30001 filter. Fram is saying that testing 3 different sizes still yields an average between all 3 that meets "99%+ for particles >20 microns" for the Ultra.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fram's efficiency statement on their website says:
"FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."


Forgot to comment about something in the Fram efficiency statement of the Fram website. The red part above is somewhat puzzling. Really don't know what they are meaning, and that part of the statement is only in the Ultra's efficiency footnote. Maybe a mis-print? I'd like to know what that statement in red really means.
 
Here is a reply from Motorking I got in an email reference to me asking about XG3980 and XG3987A flow, capacity and efficiency.

Quote:

We have been testing over 35 part numbers to be sure that we are consistently at or above 99%@20 microns. All Ultra and Tg filters are 99-99.9%@20 microns and when we go through a package redesign later this year, the box will lose the disclaimer of ISO 4548-12 of average of three part numbers. We keep getting accused of using only stats favorable to us, this will be an average of 35 part numbers instead of three.



The filters you mention both flow over 10gpm@30psi with 30W oil. Both hold in excess of 13 grams of dirt and can easily go 15k miles
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Here is a reply from Motorking I got in an email reference to me asking about XG3980 and XG3987A flow, capacity and efficiency.

Quote:

We have been testing over 35 part numbers to be sure that we are consistently at or above 99%@20 microns. All Ultra and Tg filters are 99-99.9%@20 microns and when we go through a package redesign later this year, the box will lose the disclaimer of ISO 4548-12 of average of three part numbers. We keep getting accused of using only stats favorable to us, this will be an average of 35 part numbers instead of three.



The filters you mention both flow over 10gpm@30psi with 30W oil. Both hold in excess of 13 grams of dirt and can easily go 15k miles
If you look at the flow chart that was posted awhile ago with the different brands of filters. The Tough Guard had the worst flow of all the filters. So who is telling the truth???
 
The statement "The filters you mention both flow over 10gpm@30psi with 30W oil" is somewhat nebulous.

Taking it literally, the statement says the filter flows 10 GPM with a delta-p of 30 PSI across the filter (which is pretty high).

But "with 30W" doesn't specify at what temperature. We all know the viscosity goes way down as the oil warms up. If it was 30W at room temperature it would be good, but if it was 30W at 200 deg F it wouldn't be very good.
 
ZeeOSix, the 30 psi must be the inlet pressure, not the delta-p.
Agreed motorking's reference to 30 weight oil really needs a temperature to nail viscosity down. Maybe 100 deg C, kind of traditional I guess, but who knows.
 
I would take it as operating temperature since that is the temperature/flow the oil filter is going to see most. These days when someone mentions a 30 weight oil I think 0w30, 5w30, or 10w30, basically 30 weight at operating temperature (100C or 212F).
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
ZeeOSix, the 30 psi must be the inlet pressure, not the delta-p.
Agreed motorking's reference to 30 weight oil really needs a temperature to nail viscosity down. Maybe 100 deg C, kind of traditional I guess, but who knows.


I doubt they run these filters on an engine ... but rather on a test bench, which means the inlet pressure to the filter would essentially be the delta-p across the filter if there is no resistance on the outlet side of the filter (like an engine does).

Note that an oil filter is typically only 1/15th the flow restriction compared to an engine's oiling circuit.

And if anyone is going to quote flow rate performance accurately, they need to say what the delta-p across he media is at xx viscosity and yy flow rate. Like this ....

PureOne Flow vs Delta-P Testing <--- LINK
 
Originally Posted By: Joenpb
I would take it as operating temperature since that is the temperature/flow the oil filter is going to see most. These days when someone mentions a 30 weight oil I think 0w30, 5w30, or 10w30, basically 30 weight at operating temperature (100C or 212F).


Assumptions ... facts are better.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
ZeeOSix, the 30 psi must be the inlet pressure, not the delta-p.
Agreed motorking's reference to 30 weight oil really needs a temperature to nail viscosity down. Maybe 100 deg C, kind of traditional I guess, but who knows.


I doubt they run these filters on an engine ... but rather on a test bench, which means the inlet pressure to the filter would essentially be the delta-p across the filter if there is no resistance on the outlet side of the filter (like an engine does).

Note that an oil filter is typically only 1/15th the flow restriction compared to an engine's oiling circuit.

And if anyone is going to quote flow rate performance accurately, they need to say what the delta-p across he media is at xx viscosity and yy flow rate. Like this ....

PureOne Flow vs Delta-P Testing div>


Seems like you're missing the point. Its perfectly fine to state a flow rate at a certain psi inlet pressure, and yes, its done on a bench, so what?
We are not talking about flow resistance, the delta-p you mentioned.
At an inlet pressure of 30 psi, using a certain known oil viscosity, there would be a pressure drop across the oil filter, like a voltage drop across a resistor. Thats all motorking was talking about, a bench test for flow. Put 30 psi on and see what gallons/minute you get, nothing more.
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Seems like you're missing the point. Its perfectly fine to state a flow rate at a certain psi inlet pressure, and yes, its done on a bench, so what?
We are not talking about flow resistance, the delta-p you mentioned.
At an inlet pressure of 30 psi, using a certain known oil viscosity, there would be a pressure drop across the oil filter, like a voltage drop across a resistor. Thats all motorking was talking about, a bench test for flow. Put 30 psi on and see what gallons/minute you get, nothing more.


Actually, I'm gonna respectfully say that you're missing the scenario.

Two examples:
1) Oil filter is on an engine. The engine's oiling circuit develops 50 PSI of pressure on the inlet when the oil at Temp A flows at 5 GPM when there is no oil filter installed.

Now an oil filter is installed on this engine, and the same 5 GPM at Temp A oil is flowed through teh system (filter + engine). The inlet pressure is now 55 PSI. You know why? Because the filter developed 5 PSI of delta-p across it with oil at Temp A flowing at 5 GPM.

2) Now take that same oil filter off the engine and put it on a test bench that has zero back pressure flow resistance to it ... ie, the filter outlet dumps to the atmosphere instead of into a restrictive engine oiling circuit. Flowing 5 GPM at Temp A oil through it will now only require a hair over 5 PSI to make it flow that 5 GPM, and the delta-p across the filter is the same 5 PSI it had while on the engine.

When you talk about the delta-p across an oil filter you take ALL other flow resistance out of the equation, or it will be hugely skewed.

See what I'm saying now?

PS - and if he didn't give a real delta-p across the filter, then the information is even more nebulous (see red text in you quote).
 
Originally Posted By: steveh
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Hi,
I work at FRAM as the tech director. WIX anything simply does not even come close to the filtering efficiency of even the least expensive FRAM filter. The best WIX can do is mid 80% efficiency @20 microns. The WIX XP is far worse at near 50% (this info from BITOG members who have contacted WIX).
FRAM is the largest OE filter supplier in the world making filters for Ford, GM, Honda, Subaru, Porshe and many others. Filer efficiency is from 94.7% for EG to 99+% @ 20 microns for TG and Ultra. That said, at 4k OCI's, any decent brand name filter would be fine for you.
If the best Wix can do is mid 80% and Wix claims 95% why doesn't Fram have them in court???


While he didn't make it entirely clear, I believe Jay's comment has been misunderstood. At the time he posted that I believe he was comparing entry level filters vs entry level filters, the orange can is advertised at 95% and indeed the entry level Wix filters such as the Napa Silver are likely around 80% as he stated, and the combo valves filters are probably even lower than that.

Not what he specifically said, but I believe it is what he meant.
 
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Actually it is a mute point across all filter thread comparisons because Fram, WIX, Tearolator all "hide" some part of their efficiency. So it is an Apples to Umbrella to Spoon comparison.

That is precisely why I don't worry too much about efficiency specs. I will grant that there are more efficient choices than my Wix, Hastings, or Motorcraft. But we certainly don't have equivalent testing with all equivalent crosses, either. I won't chase the most "efficient" filter while ignoring cost and perceived design quality. The Bosch Premium is one of my favorite filters, and has good efficiency; that goes out the window if they tear. Fram doesn't give me enough "guts" in their lower end filters for the cost, and gives me too much on their high end one.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: steveh
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Hi,
I work at FRAM as the tech director. WIX anything simply does not even come close to the filtering efficiency of even the least expensive FRAM filter.The best WIX can do is mid 80% efficiency @20 microns. The WIX XP is far worse at near 50% (this info from BITOG members who have contacted WIX).
FRAM is the largest OE filter supplier in 'the' world making filters for Ford, GM, Honda, Subaru, Porshe and many others. Filer efficiency is from 94.7% for EG to 99+% @ 20 microns for TG and Ultra. That said, at 4k OCI's, any decent brand name filter would be fine for you.
If the best Wix can do is mid 80% and Wix claims 95% why doesn't Fram have them in court???

While he didn't make it entirely clear, I believe Jay's comment has been misunderstood. At the time he posted that I believe he was comparing entry level filters vs entry level filters, the orange can is advertised at 95% and indeed the entry level Wix filters such as the Napa Silver.......


What is actually said is clear to see. "Wix anything" would include and generally accepted to mean the most common 'Wix labeled' filter and clearly the topic of this thread, "Toughguard vs Wix"

More specifically the OP of this thread asked about the TG3506 vs 51042, the latter being 'the WIX labeled' filter application posted on the Wix website. The beta of which indicates it being 95%@20um.

And while all the Fram efficiencies from the orange can, to TG and even Ultra (neither entry level) are neatly referenced, nowhere in the post is there a mention of the Napa Silver (or MicroGard,ProSelect), which is a lower tier 'made for' Napa by Wix, not a Wix labeled filter, the topic of the thread.

So my initial and subsequent response understood the verbatim meaning of "Wix anything."
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Actually it is a mute point across all filter thread comparisons because Fram, WIX, Tearolator all "hide" some part of their efficiency. So it is an Apples to Umbrella to Spoon comparison.

That is precisely why I don't worry too much about efficiency specs. I will grant that there are more efficient choices than my Wix, Hastings, or Motorcraft. But we certainly don't have equivalent testing with all equivalent crosses, either. I won't chase the most "efficient" filter while ignoring cost and perceived design quality. The Bosch Premium is one of my favorite filters, and has good efficiency; that goes out the window if they tear. Fram doesn't give me enough "guts" in their lower end filters for the cost, and gives me too much on their high end one.
wink.gif



These are my thoughts exactly although I have no experience with the Bosch Premium.
smile.gif


Folks get too caught up in efficiency specs when it reality it isn't necessary. As said before, make sure the air filter is good if anything.
 
Well, for me, the Bosch Premium had some decent construction characteristics and good filtering, along with decent pricing, at least online if I was getting something else. Tears of course, don't impress me. And Purolator's marketing up here is atrocious. Unless it's a Purolator branded as something else, you're not going to find it.

As for air filtration, don't remind me. To replace DRL bulbs in my G37, I had to take the air filter assemblies off. At least I didn't have to fool around with the filter seal itself.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Here's a possibility. Since WIX never says what test standard was used to achieve their efficiency numbers, it could be that it was not ISO 4548-12. Using different test procedures could yield different efficiency numbers.

The "mid 80s @ 20 microns" might be what the WIX filters test out at when using the ISO 4548-12 test standard. If Fram did their own in-house test on competitors filters, they would most likely be using ISO 4548-12.

Has anyone actually found out what test standard WIX is using?


So I just got off the phone with WIX Tech Dept, and I asked the guy if he could tell me what test specification WIX uses to determine their filter efficiencies (beta ratios).

He tells me he can not divulge that information. Hmmmm ... really? What is WIX hiding? I told him other filter manufacturer's divulge that information.

I even said depending on what test spec is used to determine efficiency, you could get a range of different numbers ... he says: "Yes, that it true." Hmmmm, again.

Then I ask him about the "Max Flow Rate" number that WIX uses in their specs ... I asked him "what does that really mean?". He says "That is the maximum amount of oil that will flow through the center hole in the base plate." I'm thinking, what does that have to do with anything relevant. I asked him if WIX has any data on flow rate vs delta-p across the media and again he comes back with "We can't share that information". I'm thinking what is this ... Area 51? LoL

And while I had him on the phone, I asked him about the WIX XP and it's low efficiency number of 50% @ 20 microns. Then he goes into the spiel about how they have to make it lower efficiency so that it won't clog up over the extended use period (10K miles). I asked how come other manufacturers like Fram, Mobil, Purolator, Royal Purple, Donaldson, etc all have extended use full synthetic filters that are rated for at least 10K mile, yet they are way more efficient. He couldn't really tell me why ... another Hummm.

Anyway, for all you guys who think the specs on WIX's website are the "bee's knee" ... they are all pretty nebulous IMO. Fram and Purolator, etc that actually reference ISO 4548-12 as the test spec they base their efficiency numbers on are way more transparent than WIX is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Fram FE9972 vs WIX 57047XP for 2AR-FE?
Replies
8
Views
3K
ZeeOSix
Fabulous50s
first use of Fram filter
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
GMBoy
J
A Better Choice Than FL820S ?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
8K
ZeeOSix
O
Oversized filter discussion (please excuse my ignorance)
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
oldhp
L
O'Reilly's MSL line " Wix Xp " knock off( Pic )
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
researcher
Back
Top