Wix XP efficiency

[Xrs2zz]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: MParr
You won’t convince me otherwise.

He is right, though. Look at his posts from a few years back with regards to Purolator. He likes high efficiency filtration At one time, all things being equal, Purolator was leading that market. Now, there's something else, and the tearing issue didn't help, either.

A few years back, too, I was quite happy to be using Bosch Premiums for under $5 with Purolator P1 efficiency. Of course, events conspired against me, too, with the pricing going up significantly, the convenience and availability dropping off, not to mention the tears. So, I went back to the Wix that I've been using for years, along with some dalliances with Hastings and Baldwin.


True. I've gone back and read those posts by Zee before.

 

[bbhero]

Post of the day winner is Kruse!!!!

 

[MParr]

I stand by what I said. I know corporate propaganda when I see it. No matter who takes the time to cut open a filter of any brand, he shows up with the cookie cutter comments. 99%@20u. Broken record! If I find an oil change special, I’ll jump on it. WIX XP oil change special at O’Reilly, I’ll go for it. Purolator Boss oil change special at Advance, I’ll go for it. STP Maximum Life oil change special at AutoZone, I’ll go for it. FRAM Ultra special at wherever, I’ll go for it. 42 years of doing my own oil changes and ZERO engine problems related to lubrication.

 

[dnewton3]

Products change over the years, due to a multitude of reasons including ownership shift, marketing strategy, quality drives or lapses, new products come out, others fade away,
etc.

It is not wrong, in any manner, to adjust one's position of a product relative to the performance "at the moment".

The OCOD, as it's known, has actually gained favorability recently. Purolator has lost. These would be just two examples of how perception has shifted.

Some of you act like it's a bad thing to change one's mind. I would agree that fickle behavior isn't attractive, but changing one's mind after research and careful consideration isn't bad at all. Why do some of you care what I like, or others like? Use what you like; do what you want. What you "want" isn't necessarily the best for your equipment, but it's best for "you".


The color red is at the low end of the light spectrum. The color violet at the high end. Those are facts.
I like the color blue most of all; that's my opinion.

Don't confuse someone's opinion with facts. Facts are based on truth and proof of existence. Opinions are based on emotions.

It is a fact that there are many good filters out there.
It is a fact that the good filters all produce the same net effect.
It is a fact that using a super-duper premium filter does not reduce wear in a tangible manner in typical daily applications (despite the ignorance of some and the arrogance of others).

It is my opinion that the TG and Wix/NG offer a great value; excellent efficiency that exceeds anything I need, along with the capacity to certainly cover my 15k mile OCIs, and easily attained at several places near me. I am also of the opinion that there are many other good brands as well, but may not be in the price range or as easily attained for me.

I am also given to the opinion that too many of you are easily swayed by marketing hype, have a propensity leaning towards over-indulgence in the "more is always better" camp, and don't assess things well based on facts. But that is my opinion. Other people have opinions about me; likely not able to be stated publicly on this site!

The XP Wix has an efficiency rating that is well below many other choices that actually cost less. That bothers me, but it doesn't bother other folks. Fine by me.

Caveat Emptor, folks.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MParr
I stand by what I said. I know corporate propaganda when I see it. No matter who takes the time to cut open a filter of any brand, he shows up with the cookie cutter comments. 99%@20u. Broken record! If I find an oil change special, I’ll jump on it. WIX XP oil change special at O’Reilly, I’ll go for it. Purolator Boss oil change special at Advance, I’ll go for it. STP Maximum Life oil change special at AutoZone, I’ll go for it. FRAM Ultra special at wherever, I’ll go for it. 42 years of doing my own oil changes and ZERO engine problems related to lubrication.


Obviously efficiency performance is low on your "how I choose an oil filter" requirement list. Well, it's pretty high on mine and many other members here, so why get all upset about the fact that some people like and mention high efficiency oil filters? I'm not the only guy on this site that brings up high efficiency filters. And if you've actually read most of my posts I've said may times that there are other good high efficiency oil filters on the market, and that any filter of high quality construction that is at 95% @ 20 microns or better is something I'd use. The XP just doesn't fit my requirements ... too bad, because I'd probably use it if it was better. If you don't like people talking about efficient filters, or people who mention a brand you don't like, then simply put them on ignore. Don't confuse fanboyism for "corporate propaganda".

 

[MParr]

Well said! I do 5,000 mile oil changes and I don’t go out of my way to buy the high dollar synthetic oil filters. I don’t need them in my applications. The WIX XP is a good oil filter. You can rest assured it will do what it’s designed to do. Buy what you like and works best in your particular application. I am now waiting for some more corporate cookie cutter nonsense.

 

[bbhero]

Hey if you like it... You like it. Nothing wrong with that in my way of thinking. I will say that I'd run a Purolator Boss or STP XL, or STP Max oil filter. In fact there's a STP XL 4967 on my lady's Camry right now.

Having said that.... One big thing MParr said here is a big elephant in the room... The Fram Ultra has disappeared from many locations outside of Wally World.... And that's not a good thing in my opinion. And yeah I know that Purolator got the AAP contracts.... Still only Pep Boys has it as well and I wonder for how long even there. I'd be very pleased to see it come back to other places again. I don't think that it is a good thing that they aren't available in more locations.

 

[MParr]

More of that broken record stuff. You need to get your new script approved.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MParr
More of that broken record stuff. You need to get your new script approved.

I'll make it a point to mention the Ultra even more now, just for you.

I could even whip up some fancy Ultra message in my signature so it's seen in every post! Dang, why didn't "corporate" think of that?

 

[MParr]

Excellent! FRAM can up your compensation for being a good little soldier.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MParr
Excellent! FRAM can up your compensation for being a good little soldier.

Yeah, anything more than zero would be an improvement. Maybe you could put a good word in with the CEO on my behalf.

How's this for a posdible signature? "Nothing Beats an Ultra"

 

[goodtimes]

The word efficiency used here as an oil filter buying tool should have an asterisk after it, efficiency*. *Efficiency on a four hour multipass test machine that loads the filter to capacity with fixed interval doses of a standard test dust. Marketing makes the customer want to believe this is the same efficiency as efficiency in real world use. The standard test loads the filter in approximately the equivalent of 250 miles, or less. In real use it takes 20-100 times as long as in the standard test. Based on Motorkings one gram per thousand miles average dirt figure. It's very possible, and there is actual data that has been shown here, a highest performer on the well marketed efficiency number, like the Ultra, may not keep the oil as clean as other filters. I am not buying into the efficiency on the box hype, need real world tests, although I am pulled into the marketing too. They beam you right into it.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The word efficiency used here as an oil filter buying tool should have an asterisk after it, efficiency*. *Efficiency on a four hour multipass test machine that loads the filter to capacity with fixed interval doses of a standard test dust. Marketing makes the customer want to believe this is the same efficiency as efficiency in real world use. The standard test loads the filter in approximately the equivalent of 250 miles, or less. In real use it takes 20-100 times as long as in the standard test. Based on Motorkings one gram per thousand miles average dirt figure. It's very possible, and there is actual data that has been shown here, a highest performer on the well marketed efficiency number, like the Ultra, may not keep the oil as clean as other filters. I am not buying into the efficiency on the box hype, need real world tests, although I am pulled into the marketing too. They beam you right into it.

Like what? Describe a statistically relevant "real world test" that would indicate filtering efficiency.

 

[MParr]

How about “Filtering Out Your Nonsense” ?

 

[bullwinkle]

Like I said above-if it stays in one piece, doesn't tear, and can handle the contaminant load-it's good enough for me. I still use Puro filters-but only in thinner or synthetic oil applications, for reasonable non-extended OCIs, and I cut them open to look for issues after they've been used. If I see a problem, this site is the 2nd to know about it. Z06 has been around a long time, I'm sure he has plenty of first-hand experience with his equipment. Let's pretend we're professionals here, the name-calling is starting to make us look like a "ricer" tuner forum!

 

[oshia86]

As a typical lurker here, I'm confused on your stance here. Do you somehow debate that Fram's effeciency rating is correct? That it matters? Why not just state your opinion like an adult? Just based on this thread alone, your opinion alone would be the one that I would not consider based on the lack of tact here.

Myself, I used the standard WIX filter for years, up until (it seemed overnight) they seemed to be deforming quite extensively and I was starting to be concerned the units would tear. Now, I used the cartridge filters in my dd, so that would explain things a little. I have recently switched to the FU after some pretty ugly Wix filters were removed. I did a 10k test run on a single Fram Ultra and it came out beautifilly. You know what? I'm going to buy what I trust and what does the job well for the money. There is only one store near me that sells Wix and they aren't exactly cheap. The FU is pretty well everywhere near me and very reasonably priced. If Wix wants to compete again for my business they will have to make their filter more accessible and equally priced. As far as effeciency, why would I skip over something that is cheaper, more available, and has a better effeciency rating for something that is more expensive here, a further drive away, and does it's sole job to less of an extent?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MParr
How about “Filtering Out Your Nonsense” ?

It's only nonsense to someone who's either uneducated on filtration or simple just a brand hater no matter how good a product is. I bet if the XP had stellar efficiency you'd be hearing about it all the time too from a lot of people, including me.

Are you really just a Fram hater starting to smoke like a vampire in the sun?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The word efficiency used here as an oil filter buying tool should have an asterisk after it, efficiency*. *Efficiency on a four hour multipass test machine that loads the filter to capacity with fixed interval doses of a standard test dust. Marketing makes the customer want to believe this is the same efficiency as efficiency in real world use.

Got any actual reference like an SAE paper or similar high level information source that proves "real world efficiency" is not representative of what an ISO efficiency test shows in terms of filter performance comparison rankikings? I haven't seen anything like that published.

And I'm not talking about the recent talk about "dynamic efficiency testing", because all filters will see effects of that, and it's even possible that filters that test badly in 4548-12 will be even worse in dynamic testing - which also means being worse when used on the street. I say that because by the very definition of the average efficiency as defined in 4548-12, any filter that tests low in efficiency could be suffering from not firmly holding on to captured particles due to the delta-p force across the media (as M+H testing showed) . In other words, a filter with a very high efficiency should also do better under dynamic conditions than a low efficiency filter because it's efficiency is more stable from new condition to fully loaded.

Only way to get "real world in use" efficiency would be to rig-up a vehicle with accurate high resolution partical counters up and down stream of the filter mount, and drive around monitoring filter efficiency continuously. It would be interesting to see data from a test like that.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The word efficiency used here as an oil filter buying tool should have an asterisk after it, efficiency*. *Efficiency on a four hour multipass test machine that loads the filter to capacity with fixed interval doses of a standard test dust. Marketing makes the customer want to believe this is the same efficiency as efficiency in real world use.

Got any actual reference like an SAE paper or similar high level information source that proves "real world efficiency" is not representative of what an ISO efficiency shows in terms of filter compatison rankikings? I haven't seen anything like that published.

And I'm not talking about the recent talk about "dynamic efficiency testing", because all filters will see effects of that, and it's even possible that filters that test badly in 4548-12 will be even worse in dynamic testing - which means worse being used on the street. I say that because by the very definition of the average efficiency as defined in 4548-12, any filter that tests low in efficiency could be suffering from not firmly holding on to captured particles due to the delta-p force across the media. In other words, a filter with a very high efficiency should also do better under dynamic conditions than a low efficiency filter because it's efficiency is more stable from new condition to fully loaded as shown by the definition of ISO 4548-12 efficiency.

Only way to get "real world in use" efficiency would be to rig-up a vehicle with accurate high resolution partical counters up and down stream of the filter mount, and drive around monitoring filter efficiency continuously.


The test is done in four hours, not 100-300 hours as in real life, that's all the documentation I need.
Correct, a real world efficiency test requires a lot more money and time than the SAE test. Doubtful even 2018 new particle counters can count relevant real time differences in/out when there is one gram per thousand miles generated.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The word efficiency used here as an oil filter buying tool should have an asterisk after it, efficiency*. *Efficiency on a four hour multipass test machine that loads the filter to capacity with fixed interval doses of a standard test dust. Marketing makes the customer want to believe this is the same efficiency as efficiency in real world use. The standard test loads the filter in approximately the equivalent of 250 miles, or less. In real use it takes 20-100 times as long as in the standard test. Based on Motorkings one gram per thousand miles average dirt figure. It's very possible, and there is actual data that has been shown here, a highest performer on the well marketed efficiency number, like the Ultra, may not keep the oil as clean as other filters. I am not buying into the efficiency on the box hype, need real world tests, although I am pulled into the marketing too. They beam you right into it.

Like what? Describe a statistically relevant "real world test" that would indicate filtering efficiency.


I said the four hour test, 100-250 miles equivalent, loading a filter to max at timed intervals with a test dust, is not the same as adding one gram/thousand miles in real life.