Wix Beta Ratio

[Stelth]

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. I just looked up 3 filters on the Wix website, that would fit three of my vehicles. They all list a beta ratio of 2/20=6/20. This means 50% @ 6 microns, and 95% @ 20 microns, correct?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

E = 100 - (100/Beta). Wix states the efficiency a liitle different from accepted practice, but you got it!

 

[jmb3675]

Originally Posted By: Stelth

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. I just looked up 3 filters on the Wix website, that would fit three of my vehicles. They all list a beta ratio of 2/20=6/20. This means 50% @ 6 microns, and 95% @ 20 microns, correct?

According to the person I talked to at Wix not to long ago, That is correct.

 

[ZeeOSix]

+1 ... correct.

 

[MrQuackers]

Sounds pretty good. I have one installed now. I like the base end bypass.

 

[Cooper]

IMHO, the best standard, non synthetic filter you can purchase. You don't see failures, like the big 2.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yep, efficiency of 95% @ 20 microns is pretty good. For me, that's the low end that I still go for.

 

[dnewton3]

Agreed; the interpretation is correct. Of course, that's Wix current approach to white-washing all the data. They started that a few years ago. They've pretty much put that throughout the whole product line, save for a few stragglers. If you want to see the real numbers, hop over to FleetFilter and they still have the archived older beta data that is unique to each filter. At some point, I suspect that will disappear as well, but until then it's our last bastion of hope.

 

[Stelth]

Thanks, Dave, I hadn't noticed that. I looked at some of those FleetFilter numbers, and was kind of surprised.

 

[rustypigeon]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Of course, that's Wix current approach to white-washing all the data. They started that a few years ago. They've pretty much put that throughout the whole product line, save for a few stragglers. If you want to see the real numbers, hop over to FleetFilter and they still have the archived older beta data that is unique to each filter. At some point, I suspect that will disappear as well, but until then it's our last bastion of hope.

I would think that if the same media type is used on each filter, the beta ratio would be the same. Yeah the smaller one would get more efficient faster as it starts to collect particles, but in the beginning, they should be the same. Right?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: rustypigeon

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Of course, that's Wix current approach to white-washing all the data. They started that a few years ago. They've pretty much put that throughout the whole product line, save for a few stragglers. If you want to see the real numbers, hop over to FleetFilter and they still have the archived older beta data that is unique to each filter. At some point, I suspect that will disappear as well, but until then it's our last bastion of hope.

I would think that if the same media type is used on each filter, the beta ratio would be the same. Yeah the smaller one would get more efficient faster as it starts to collect particles, but in the beginning, they should be the same. Right?

Theory is that with a larger filter it has more media surface area, and therefore less delta-p across the media with the same oil volume flowing through it during beta testing. A later delta-p can cause some particles to be pushed through the media that would have normally been trapped if the delta-p was lower. So theoretically, a larger filter using the same exact media as a smaller filter would have a slightly better beta ratio (efficiency). That's one reason you see the filter manufacturers reference a pretty large filter with their ISO efficiency rating. Also a theory on why the 4 smallest Purolator spin-on filters are rated at 40 microns instead of 20 microns in their advertised efficiency.

 

[rustypigeon]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Originally Posted By: rustypigeon

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Of course, that's Wix current approach to white-washing all the data. They started that a few years ago. They've pretty much put that throughout the whole product line, save for a few stragglers. If you want to see the real numbers, hop over to FleetFilter and they still have the archived older beta data that is unique to each filter. At some point, I suspect that will disappear as well, but until then it's our last bastion of hope.

I would think that if the same media type is used on each filter, the beta ratio would be the same. Yeah the smaller one would get more efficient faster as it starts to collect particles, but in the beginning, they should be the same. Right?

Theory is that with a larger filter it has more media surface area, and therefore less delta-p across the media with the same oil volume flowing through it during beta testing. A later delta-p can cause some particles to be pushed through the media that would have normally been trapped if the delta-p was lower. So theoretically, a larger filter using the same exact media as a smaller filter would have a slightly better beta ratio (efficiency). That's one reason you see the filter manufacturers reference a pretty large filter with their ISO efficiency rating. Also a theory on why the 4 smallest Purolator spin-on filters are rated at 40 microns instead of 20 microns in their advertised efficiency.

I gotcha. Thanks!

 

[sicko]

The Wix filter beta ratio that kind of surprises me is their Subaru oil filter (with the high bypass relief pressure), http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57712 Its beta ratio is 2/20 = 2/20, so it's filtering 50% of the particles 2 microns in size, and 95% of the particles 20 microns in size. I contacted Wix thinking it was a misprint and was supposed to be 2/20 = 6/20 like a lot of their other filters. But they confirmed that 2/20 = 2/20 is correct.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: sicko

The Wix filter beta ratio that kind of surprises me is their Subaru oil filter (with the high bypass relief pressure), http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57712 Its beta ratio is 2/20 = 2/20, so it's filtering 50% of the particles 2 microns in size, and 95% of the particles 20 microns in size. I contacted Wix thinking it was a misprint and was supposed to be 2/20 = 6/20 like a lot of their other filters. But they confirmed that 2/20 = 2/20 is correct.

50% @ 2 microns is outstanding, but somewhat hard to believe if it's only 95% @ 20 microns. It would be more like 99%+ at 20 or less microns I would think if it really was 50% @ 2u.

 

[dnewton3]

There are always exceptions to any rule. A few examples from the FleetFilter site (cannot use Wix any longer because they are all the "same"). Here you can see that smaller filters have better performance. 51515 beta 2/20 = 13/23 (larger) 51311 beta 2/20 = 8/21 (smaller) 51307 beta 2/20 = 7/18 (smaller) The smaller filters here actually have better efficiency. Why? Could not tell you. Way back when Gary Allan was with us (RIP dear friend) we debated this. Not being privy to the actual media details, we could only suspect that the media was actually different. If not, then the whole "bigger = better efficiency" theory goes right into the toilet. But if they DO use different media, then how are any of us to know which filter gets which media strain???? Now, the smaller filters may have less holding capacity; don't know and cannot attest to that because they don't publish that data. Only one of two conclusions can be made here, given only the info we have: 1) larger does not always mean better efficiency or 2) different medias are used in different applications, to a level that none of us will ever be privy to, so selection of any filter absent of efficiency and holding capacity data is moot It's that simple.