Wix/ Napa best oil Filters

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,667
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by goodtimes
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
It means it was probably an out flyer data point that someone (you know who) always latched on to. But there was more PC test data compiled that showed that particular no name filter was coming in with PC data where other filters rated at 50% @ 20μ and 99% @ 40μ were typically coming in at. And there were other Ultra PCs showing much better/cleaner PC results. So yeah, PC data can get skewed and the only way to try and control the skewing is to run different filters on the same car, take samples the same way, use the same lab or even sent same samples to 2 labs to cross check lab results. I thought Subie was about done with his "Frantz" type test of swapping filters 1/2 way through a long OCI to compare PCs.
You are the one latched on to your Ultra and the sae test. I'm not latched onto anything here. It was more than one post about filters beating the Ultra . You're very good at searching, I'm not. You can't just say data you disagree with is an outlier. That's an assumption you don't know. You can say it, but it isn't a fact. I can say it wasn't just as easily. It was a very well referenced test, the one.
The part in red is connected to why I said what I did. Go glean all the PC data out of the UOA forum, plot it all out and you might also see where the likely outliers are - which includes your cheap no-name super filter. Do you even know where that filter sits on the PC graph? ... in the same range as the 99% @ 40u filters do. I've posted it a few times in these discussions. If you don't believe it, then go dig up all the data, compare it all and see for yourself. There's no better leaning than self leaning. wink
Ultra lost the particle count test according to Blackstone. I don't have the no name filter it was someone else's testing result.There were other cleanliness tests. More particles in the Ultra sample. More is more. When one filter leaves more particles it can't be changed to it left less because it is against someone's opinion.
Go collect the PC data like I suggested ... you have no idea what you're concluding with only two data points without seeing the whole picture. That Ultra was an outlier because there were other Ultras that had a much better PC. The no-name filter you keep latching onto was no better on the PC graphed data from filters rated at 99% @ 40u and 50% @ 20u. You were like this as goodtimes with this same discussion, lol.
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
4,044
Location
The land of USA-made Subies!
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Go collect the PC data like I suggested ... you have no idea what you're concluding with only two data points without seeing the whole picture. That Ultra was an outlier because there were other Ultras that had a much better PC. The no-name filter you keep latching onto was no better on the PC graphed data from filters rated at 99% @ 40u and 50% @ 20u. You were like this as goodtimes with this same discussion, lol.
Yes I agree with the need for more data. I'm going to pull my second sample on the Amsoil SS 10W30 fill this week so we can compare Fram Ultra and MicroGreen. Ran 7700 miles on Fram Ultra, dropped filter only and topped off, and ran another 3k miles on the MicroGreen and pulled sample. So the only difference in PC between the two filters should be the mileage run, since the top-off Amsoil was likely dirtier than what had been circulating through the Ultra already. Hope to have results by next Tuesday or so due to the Holiday.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
2,532
Location
USA
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Go collect the PC data like I suggested ... you have no idea what you're concluding with only two data points without seeing the whole picture. That Ultra was an outlier because there were other Ultras that had a much better PC. The no-name filter you keep latching onto was no better on the PC graphed data from filters rated at 99% @ 40u and 50% @ 20u. You were like this as goodtimes with this same discussion, lol.
Yes I agree with the need for more data. I'm going to pull my second sample on the Amsoil SS 10W30 fill this week so we can compare Fram Ultra and MicroGreen. Ran 7700 miles on Fram Ultra, dropped filter only and topped off, and ran another 3k miles on the MicroGreen and pulled sample. So the only difference in PC between the two filters should be the mileage run, since the top-off Amsoil was likely dirtier than what had been circulating through the Ultra already. Hope to have results by next Tuesday or so due to the Holiday.
That's generous of you. Maybe interested members could have a way to pool together some funds to pay you something for the tests by Paypal. I would put in a few bucks, maybe a number people putting a few dollars in could pay for more tests.. It has to be done like you are doing it or that other test with the Ultra and no name. Comparing PC of different filters on the same vehicle with the same oil and conditions. Quite an undertaking to get enough data points. Maybe I will put an Ultra on my pickup and then install a Frantz and see what I get. In any case any single test can be called a mistake, If one has the mission to do so. So easy to cry fake news with no evidence.
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
4,044
Location
The land of USA-made Subies!
That's a thought, Farnsworth, and I'd have no problem being the test bed for it. I'd even pay for all of the filters, as I have a wide swath of inexpensive filters available at Rural King, and also the regulars (Mobil 1, Fram Ultra, NAPA Gold, etc). I've got at least 8 oil changes worth of the same oil so we can remove that from the variables. I'd say so that we get results quickly (I put about 20k a year on the vehicle I'd run the tests on), we'd arrange the test something like this; Pick 8 subject filters. Let the board rank the 8 filters in "expected results" from #1-8. Pair #1 & 5, #2 & 6, etc. to make a ladder-type test. Run filter #5 for 2500 miles and draw dipstick tube sample; drop filter and put on #1, and top off oil. Run for 2500 miles, draw dipstick tube sample, mail both filters to 53' Stude for C&P and both oil samples off to whatever lab the test's financial backers agree on (TestOil has done all my previous PC tests for example). Drain the oil, replace with same brand and weight, and put on filter #6, and repeat test procedure for remaining 3 pairs of filters. I think the two-tier approach in "expected filtration" using the lower tier filter first will be a good way to see how well the lesser filter does with fresh oil, and if/how much better the upper tier filter does with used oil but new filter. If somebody experienced like ZeeOSix has input since he's one of the board's more vocal PC proponents, that would be good. If you want to be the initiator of a post judging interest (especially to fund the testing), feel free, and solicit what brands people would like tested. For reference, my vehicle will accept filters that cross reference to just about any M20x1.5 filter available- Honda, Nissan, Subaru filters of any size will fit. I have the physical space to accommodate any length in these sizes, and diameter up to about 3.5". Fram 3593A, 7317, 6607 are just some of the ones that cross-reference and fit.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,667
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
It has to be done like you are doing it or that other test with the Ultra and no name. Comparing PC of different filters on the same vehicle with the same oil and conditions.
You saying the no-name and Ultra were on the same vehicle? Links to back that up?
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
... In any case any single test can be called a mistake, If one has the mission to do so. So easy to cry fake news with no evidence.
You mean like when "someone" latched on to the no-name filter vs Ultra test data, and was so convinced it was a totally valid test showing that Ultras are inefficient. grin2
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,667
Location
PNW
Some decent proposals on possible future testing Subie. Doing 8 filters as proposed might not give much distinction over the efficiency spread (50% @ 20μ to 99% @ 20μ) in fulk flow oil filters, except for the difference between the lower, middle and most efficient. Maybe do 3 filters on one oil run with UOAs at 5K mile intervals if you could run oil 15K miles total. Or do 4K UOAs if you could run a 12K OCI, ect. That would bracket PC vs rated efficiency, which is all the test proves. In other words, do higher rated filters correlate to cleaner oil in the real world? The PC data from the UOA forum says that's true in most cases. Will be interesting to see the Ultra vs Microgreen PC data. I'll plot the data if you'd like since I've got an Excel spreadsheet setup for that.
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
4,044
Location
The land of USA-made Subies!
Those are some good adds to the test protocol, Zee. Based on "normal" EJ OCIs, I think with two top ups of about half a pint at filter changes, 12k total distance (4k per filter) would be achievable.
 
Top