wix filters

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
What delineates an oil filter bypass differential setting as "wrong" as opposed to "not the same"?

It depends on what filter brand one-way hate glasses someone is wearing. Just go back and re-read this thread from the beginning.

Yes we see someone hating on wix. Not cool to hate like that.


Not hating on WIX ... just pointing out a fact. I didn't say the setting was wrong, just that it didn't "match the OEM setting". You think it's hate because you seem to be a "fanboi", and it kiboshes what you've been preaching about bypass valve settings.

As said before, I've used WIX/NAPA Gold many times and think they are a decent filter. However, I personally wouldn't use the XP/Platinum for my own reasons.

Go look up the bypass setting on 10 different brand oil filters for the same vehicle and you'll see there is quite a spread on the valve settings. Yet you only focus on one particular brand to latch onto with some misconception that they don't know what they're doing. It's pretty obvious what your agenda is.

You say quite a few negative things about other filters, even though what you say are basic misconceptions, and therefore really just driven by brand hate.

I'm just trying to help a guy (op). It's sound advice for me to recommend either oem or to check the specs on a filter before buying it. Wix is better about meeting manufacturers specs. If a particular wix is wrong though I'd look elsewhere for that application.
The one with an agenda is you and anybody paying attention could see it.

 

[hatt]

Tearolator media likely couldn't handle a 22 psi bypass setting without turning into confetti so they had to go with 17.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
The one with an agenda is you and anybody paying attention could see it.


And exactly what do you think that is?

 

[oil_film_movies]

What would be nice is if every filter maker was required to reveal the mass flow rate (GPM) for 300 cSt oil that starts to open their bypass valve.
That would reveal how free flowing the oil filter is, and we could use that mass flow rate & the 4548-12 20 micron rating to show how free flowing & efficient it is.
I'm dreaming.
Then we could compare all that with the OEM oil filter to see if we would have more or less bypass events in the winter time at start-up.

OK, all that above is out of the question because oil filter companies practice subterfuge.
What can we do?
We've reasoned that a Fram Ultra "probably" has less pressure drop, so might get by with a lower bypass valve pressure, yet we don't know exactly. So can't say. We guess. Not good enough.
Then we're left with assuming all filter media across brands have the same pressure drop, which is really not true.

What I end up doing is looking at the bypass pressure threshold the OEM oil filter has, and choosing an oil filter that has about that same amount. I then secretly hope that the media in the filter I choose is at least as free-flowing as the OEM's.

Example: Take AC-Delco's lame wood fiber oil filter and nitrile ADBV for a GM engine and I reject it. Then I take its bypass valve setting and find the match in Wix or NAPAgold, where I assume it flows better and I'll get fewer bypass events when cold. In that case the Fram Ultra can't be used because its bypass setting is too low, and I don't know how much more free-flowing it is compared to AC-Delco, so no Fram Ultra. Sad. (A Subaru owner would go through the same tough exercise; other makes far less of a pressure bypass match problem.)

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
What would be nice is if every filter maker was required to reveal the mass flow rate (GPM) for 300 cSt oil that starts to open their bypass valve.
That would reveal how free flowing the oil filter is, and we could use that mass flow rate & the 4548-12 20 micron rating to show how free flowing & efficient it is.
I'm dreaming.
Then we could compare all that with the OEM oil filter to see if we would have more or less bypass events in the winter time at start-up.


It's easy for filter makers to model their media flow performance through flow testing. So all they have to do is know what the max oil pump flow is, what the expected debris loading is at end of the recommended use interval, and the worse case oil viscosity/temperature factor and then model away to determine what the bypass valve should be set to.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by mobilaltima
Is there any reason for me not to run a Napa Gold oil filter on any of these engines, do they really meet oem specs like they claim? I've also wanted to run a Fram Ultra on my Cummins but have been hesitant, how is that filter in regards to oem specs?
Napa Gold is usually a safe bet. If the bypass pressure matches what is on the OEM oil filter, then its good, assuming the Napa Gold (aka, Wix) flows as well as the OEM, safe assumption I think.

Fram Ultra is a great oil filter. 4548-12 rating is the best around. Again, make sure the bypass pressure matches, and you'll be fine using one of those.
And when I say "match the bypass pressure", the filter you use can have a slighly higher one, by I would say about 5 psi, but no more, and no less than the OEM's.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
And when I say "match the bypass pressure", the filter you use can have a slighly higher one, by I would say about 5 psi, but no more, and no less than the OEM's.


Why not less? What if the OEM is flow restrictive and that's a factor on why they set the bypass valve higher. A more restrictive flowing filter would need to have a higher bypass valve setting to ensure it doesn't go into bypass too often.

 

[Nyogtha]

GPM is gallons per minute and is a volumetric flow rate, not a mass flow rate. It is more appropriate rating for an oil filter IMO & IME since different specification oils have different densities, plus liquid density changes with temperature, becoming less dense as temperature increases.

Not sure why anyone would instead choose a mass flow rate (pounds per minute or kilograms per minute as examples) for rating a passenger car oil filter, but I'm willing to listen to reasons from oil_film_movies for proposing this system.

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
What delineates an oil filter bypass differential setting as "wrong" as opposed to "not the same"?


It depends on what filter brand one-way hate glasses someone is wearing. Just go back and re-read this thread from the beginning.

Yes we see someone hating on wix. Not cool to hate like that.

My question wasn't rhetorical. For the record, I never saw ZeeOSix post anything about "wrong" oil filter bypass pressure(s) in this thread, thus he was not the target audience for my question.

 

[ZeeOSix]

He said "mass flow rate (GPM)" ... so it's just a terminology mix up. Agreed, GPM is the more useful measurement in this case.

 

[Nyogtha]

I so noted, but need oil_film_movies to define which term was the mix-up. Was he defining GPM as mass flow incorrectly meaning volumetric flow, or was he honestly positing a mass flow standard and using GPM mistakenly? It would be helpful to allow oil_film_movies to answer for himself.

I'd also like to know the technical basis for the proposed + or - 5 PSID variance from the "correct" BPV setting. To illustrate, if the "correct" setting is 10 PSID, this is a + or - 50% variance. If the "correct" BPV setting is 20 PSID, this is a + or - 25% variance. Seems very arbitrary to me but willing to review the technical basis for the proposed limits, just like my willingness to review the definition of what differentiates an "incorrect"BPV setting from a "different" BPV setting.

 

[ZeeOSix]

An "incorrect bypass valve setting" is one that: A) Allows engine damage, and/or B) allows filter damage.

Just because an OEM sets a specific bypass valve setting on their OEM oil filter doesn't automatically mean every aftermarket filter needs to have the same bypass setting to prevent A) and B).

 

[Nyogtha]

While I agree, I noted earlier you were not my target audience as you were not using the term "wrong"associated with BPV settings. I'd like to hear oil_film_movies perspective, or failing that, the technical basis for the +or- 5 PSID vs OEM /OES setting.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Nyogtha
While I agree, I noted earlier you were not my target audience as you were not using the term "wrong"associated with BPV settings. I'd like to hear oil_film_movies perspective, or failing that, the technical basis for his +or- 5 PSID vs OEM /OES setting.


I know ... I'm just saying what my definition is, and why most every aftermarket oil filter has a bypass valve setting somewhat different from the OEM filter setting.

 

[Nyogtha]

Yes, if the OEM BPV setting was critical, wouldn't every such engine be constructed like the older GM engines with bypass in the engine block, independent of the oil filter, using oil filters that do not contain BPV's?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Nyogtha
Yes, if the OEM BPV setting was critical, wouldn't every such engine be constructed like the older GM engines with bypass in the engine block, independent of the oil filter, using oil filters that do not contain BPV's?


IMO, it's better to have the BPV in the filter because it can be more "tailored" to the specific flow characteristics of the filter media. With a fixed BPV in the block, if a pretty flow restrictive filter was used then the BPV could open much more often. Or if it was set too high, it could cause the filter to fail if the delta-p got to great across the filter. Could be why GM has moved away from in-block BPVs lately.

 

[Nyogtha]

Agreed, but if oill filter BPV was CRITICAL as per my post, wouldn't that design logically remove filter manufacturer variability from the picture? My post was not about soliciting opinion but to attempt to stimulate logical train of thought regarding the premise of OEM BPV setting being the only "correct" BPV setting.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Nyogtha
Agreed, but if oill filter BPV was CRITICAL as per my post, wouldn't that design logically remove filter manufacturer variability from the picture? My post was not about soliciting opinion but to attempt to stimulate logical train of thought regarding the premise of OEM BPV setting being the only "correct" BPV setting.


If "that design" means a in-block BPV, then no I don't think it would remove the filter manufacturers variability. Only way it would is if they all designed to the in-block BPV setting, and every engine would have to use the same basic in-block setting to make filter manufacturers all design to the same flow specs to match the in-block BPV.

This thread is stimulating discussion on if the OEM BPV is the only "correct" setting - and member opinions are part of how a chat board works. My opinion is that it's not. The OEM has set their filter's bypass valve based on their filter design and vehicle oiling system performance, just as the aftermarket filter designers do.

 

[Nyogtha]

If the filter manufacturer does not include a BPV in the oil filter construction, I fail to see how that doesn't logically eliminate oil filter manufactuer variability WITH RESPECT TO BPV SETTING as this thread was previously discussing. You clearly hold a contrary position stating all engine manufacturers would need to use the same BPV set point. I disagree as long as the manufactured filter is properly designed for the set point of engines using just that same model filter, not all oil filters.

My opinion is aslo that the OEM BPV setting is not "correct" by definition and uses this to illustrate that point logically, as even GM has moved away from the engine design with oil filter bypass in the block, e.g. "that design", as my posts did not reference any other engine design, for added clarity.

Yes you continue to repeatedly voice opinion whether solicited or not. I also neither requested nor require yor opinion of how an internet chat board works. My posts,are regarding logic, certainly not a requirement on an internet chat board as well illustrated here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Nyogtha
If the filter manufacturer does not include a BPV in the oil filter construction, I fail to see how that doesn't logically eliminate oil filter manufactuer variability WITH RESPECT TO BPV SETTING as this thread was previously discussing. You clearly hold a contrary position stating all engine manufacturers would need to use the same BPV set point. I disagree as long as the manufactured filter is properly designed for the set point of engines using just that same model filter, not all oil filters.


Not many vehicles have an in-block bypass valve ... majority of them are GM V8s for many decades. So yeah, those particular filters are pretty much verified to work on those engines. But that doesn't mean that between filter brands that some filters all flow the same. They may be close, but they will all work and some may cause a bypass event to occur a bit sooner than anther brand. What I was saying is if every engine in the world had an in-block bypass valve then the fitter manufacturer would have to take that into account during a design exersice. And the only way to "remove filter manufacturer variability from the picture" at that point would be for all engines to have the same basic in-block BPV setting.

Originally Posted by Nyogtha
My opinion is aslo that the OEM BPV setting is not "correct" by definition and uses this to illustrate that point logically, as even GM has moved away from the engine design with oil filter bypass in the block, e.g. "that design", as my posts did not reference any other engine design, for added clarity.


Like I already said ... I don't think the OEM is the holy grail of the "correct" BPV setting. It is for their filter, but it doesn't define what all aftermarket filters need to be set to in order to work properly. And yes, I also mentioned about GM moving away from in-block BPVs for reasons already mentioned.