Wix XP efficiency

[SnowmanCO]

I think I cracked the code. I've really started to figure something out when analyzing all these threads on Wix XPs and Fram Ultras. This forum is the only place in the world where telling someone "FU" means to go buy a Fram Ultra. All this time I though I did something to offend someone

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: iunderpressure
Here's my thinking on the XP. Synthetic filters seem to flow better than paper ones regardless of the brand. I do believe the regular Wix would filter better than the XP, but it's probably a little more restrictive. I don't think this would normally be an issue. In extreme cold or high rpm it could become more of an issue.

I have also looked at bypass ratings. For my Ford 4.6, Wix uses a 22 psi bypass. Fram uses a 12psi bypass. In my mind Fram may filter better, but if it is in bypass more, it's not filtering anything.

The current information I read on the Fram site makes me question if their ratings are multi pass ratings. They also reference non ultra filters in the fine print.

I'm a fan of thread end bypass filters, but I like the Wix's higher rating on the bypass. I also wonder if Wix uses a dome bypass in this filter because it is cheaper than making another thread end bypass or maybe a larger spring wont fit. I figured most of their thread end bypass filters use the same lower psi bypass spring.


The flow ratings are moot. First of all, at least for the Wix, I looked up several filters including 51515, 51516, 51372. Both the Wix and WixXP filters in all examples have the exact same flow rating relative to each other. Secondly, it's generally accepted that most filters will flow FAR MORE than the pump is going to deliver. So even if your theory were true (syn flows more than cellulose; which is obviously wrong), it still would not matter because most engine oil pumps don't deliver that kind of volume. This is typical BITOG thinking; synthetic always means "better" in every aspect. More efficiency (not true in these examples), more flow (not true in these examples), etc.


The fact that different companies use different BP set values is not new or unique either. They sell what they sell. But it's also moot, because filters RARELY go into BP. Even when it happens, it's a very short event; typically a heavy dose of throttle on a stone cold engine with a thick lube. The only other time BP would matter is if you used the filter so long that it was in perpetual BP due to blinded media. In that case, the filter BP will open upon start and stay open regardless of the BP set value.

As for the BP location .....

In theory, it can be advantageous.
In reality, there's not a shred of evidence that it matters.

 

[MParr]

You’re in luck, I talked with a WIX technical rep yesterday. He told me the bypass location didn’t matter. The advantage of the dome end bypass gives the filter more media area. You may see a standard WIX with a base end bypass and the XP with a dome end bypass. I’ll give you an example. WIX 51348 has a base end bypass and WIX 51348XP has a dome end bypass. Going to the NAPA filters, the NAPA Gold 1348 has a base end bypass and the 41348 Platinum has a dome end bypass. He also told me WIX is geared to meet or exceed OEM specifications. I’ve used WIX/NAPA Gold filters and they make a darn good product. I’ll keep using them as long as their quality remains high. One thing, open the box of any brand filter before you buy. You may find a manufacturing defect that can be seen. It’s a bad thing to find out you have a defective filter after draining the oil and pulling the old filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
2) that the spec ">20um" means it uses the 20um as the "as rated at" size as a point and not a range

Common sense says that you would just say "20" then. If the octane level of gasoline is 91, the pump doesn't say 91, it just says 91. One load might be 91, and the load next week is 91.1, but 91 is the "as rated as" octane, to use your words.

You and I each buy an identical new car. They are rated at 300HP. One may put out a few horses more than the other on the dyno, but the HP rating is still listed as 300, not 300.

One could go on and on with these examples, but they would all be the same. You're trying to make an exception to a rule of common sense.

You've pretty much agreed with our point by using your gasoline and HP examples. When gasoline is assigned an octane of "91" then it is most likely 91 +/- some range like you've said. But let's say 50 samples of the gasoline always showed that it was a hair greater than 91 (say an avg of the 50 samples showed it was 91.01). Are they going to call it "91" or are they going to call it ">91". Same analogy could be made with the HP example.

Using ">20 microns" is not 'an exception to the rule' as you claim ... it's doing the same basic thing you've done with your octane and HP examples. When you see the "xx% efficiency for particles >20 microns" it means the filter is capturing xx% of all particles that are 20.00000001 (
Again, ISO 4548-12 uses the ">xx microns" labels throughout the test spec. They do not use "@xx microns". That's why companies that use ">xx microns" are actually more technically aligned with the ISO test spec.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
I think I cracked the code.


You haven't cracked anything except maybe an egg this morning for breakfast.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
It's not silly, and it's not a "game". Numbers are not semantics.

Yes, and the rules of pure mathematics are unambiguous. > 20 includes even 20.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. Dave is bringing up significant figures, which is relevant, too. If Fram says they're filtering particles > 20 microns, I'm not taking that to mean that they're only filtering particles of 40 microns and above, because 40 microns is greater than 20 microns. I'm expecting some mathematical and engineering rigour here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
It's not silly, and it's not a "game". Numbers are not semantics.

Yes, and the rules of pure mathematics are unambiguous. > 20 includes even 20.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. Dave is bringing up significant figures, which is relevant, too. If Fram says they're filtering particles > 20 microns, I'm not taking that to mean that they're only filtering particles of 40 microns and above, because 40 microns is greater than 20 microns. I'm expecting some mathematical and engineering rigour here.

+1 Garak. I'll show an "Oil Filter Efficiency vs Particle Size" curve to help show this graphically. This is a typical example graph given in ISO 4548-12 to show the filter tester that a graph like this will be generated by the collected test data.

I've put a red dot on the curve that is at (from eyeballing it) 50% @ 21.2 microns. All particles above 21.2 microns are caught by the filter at the efficiency defined by the green line - all being at a higher efficiency level than 50%. The filter is still letting some particles that are bigger than 21.2 microns through, as defined by the green line.

So in this example it's correct to say either "50% efficient for particles >21.2 microns and greater" or just simply "50% @ 21.2 microns". Using the ">21.2 microns and greater" language is actually more correct because it's more in-line with how the ISO spec identifies particle size.

 

[CharlieBauer]

The ISO 4548-12 test specifies the use of ISO 12103-1, A3 Medium Test Dust.

Here is how the particle sizes are distributed by volume in that test dust.

Micron % Less Than
0.97 2.0 – 2.4
1.38 3.8 – 4.4
2.75 10.3 – 11.1
5.50 22.1 – 23.2
11.00 42.3 – 43.6
22.00 62.5 – 64.5
44.00 82.0 – 83.5
88.00 94.7 – 96.0
124.50 97.2 – 98.6
176.00 99.0 – 100

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yes, the ISO 4548-12 test is pretty stringent and calls out all kinds of other ISO specs (ie, calibration specs) in order to run it correctly, so if someone comes in and says it "means nothing" they are smoking something. The spec hasn't been used for the last 18 years without a good reason. The only other thing to consider is do these companies follow it correctly, or do they tweak it somehow like M+H has eluded to for some reason.

If a company references ISO 4548-12 it's pretty likely they have followed it correctly in order to back-up their claims using the ISO test if they ever have to legally defend their claims. In today's competitive consumer world, you're not going to get away with false advertising or very long.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yes, the ISO 4548-12 test is pretty stringent and calls out all kinds of other ISO specs (ie, calibration specs) in order to run it correctly, so if someone comes in and says it "means nothing" they are smoking something. The spec hasn't been used for the last 18 years without a good reason. The only other thing to consider is do these companies follow it correctly, or do they tweak it somehow like M+H has eluded to for some reason.

If a company references ISO 4548-12 it's pretty likely they have followed it correctly in order to back-up their claims using the ISO test if they ever have to legally defend their claims. In today's competitive consumer world, you're not going to get away with false advertising or very long.


Having read through 4548-12, I can now see why user ISO55000 stated that it is still open to interpretation, making comparisons not necessarily valid.

For example, there is an option to not have an operative bypass valve for the test. The only requirement if this decision is made is that the test report states this fact. We don't get the report, only the marketing version.

Indeed, I read somewhere else a recommendation that when evaluating filters, you should ask for the 4548-12 report to properly understand what filter you were buying. That advice was obviously aimed at fleets, owners of expensive equipment and even anyone reselling filters, obviously not the end users, but it was given for the reason of being able to properly interpret performance.

For example, in the calrecyle study, they had SWRI test the commercial filters under consideration for extended ocis and found they did not meet all their marketing claims. The appendices to the report supposedly contain the actual SWRI reports but you have to request copies.

 

[MParr]

I’m going to throw this out there for you and Zee06 to explain. Could WIX be using a nominal rating when posting 50% at 20 microns?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yes, the ISO 4548-12 test is pretty stringent and calls out all kinds of other ISO specs (ie, calibration specs) in order to run it correctly, so if someone comes in and says it "means nothing" they are smoking something. The spec hasn't been used for the last 18 years without a good reason. The only other thing to consider is do these companies follow it correctly, or do they tweak it somehow like M+H has eluded to for some reason.

If a company references ISO 4548-12 it's pretty likely they have followed it correctly in order to back-up their claims using the ISO test if they ever have to legally defend their claims. In today's competitive consumer world, you're not going to get away with false advertising or very long.


Having read through 4548-12, I can now see why user ISO55000 stated that it is still open to interpretation, making comparisons not necessarily valid.

For example, there is an option to not have an operative bypass valve for the test. The only requirement if this decision is made is that the test report states this fact. We don't get the report, only the marketing version.


Frankly, ISO55000 was a troll trying to discount the validity of ISO 4548-12 ... he failed. If a test procedure lists an option for the tester to choose, then it's still a valid test. Not having a bypass valve for instance is fine because part -12 is testing media efficiency, not bypass valve operation. And I'll say it again ... if a test procedure is not ran correctly then all bets are off on it's validity. People can cheat doing anything in the world if they want to. But as said before, if a company is advertising that something has been tested per a certain spec, then they better make sure they are running the test right because they may need to backup their claims in court someday.

These ISO test specs are designed and approved by a big committee which everyone has to agree for it's official use. This is the statement right out of ISO 4548-12.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: MParr
I’m going to throw this out there for you and Zee06 to explain. Could WIX be using a nominal rating when posting 50% at 20 microns?

Good question, and I'm going to say no because of what I show below. I found this piece of information on Amazon.com who is selling filters for WIX, so I'm betting the info listed has come directly from WIX - here's the Amazon link: LINK

If you look at the Efficiency vs Particle Size graph I showed earlier you can understand why WIX is now showing 99% @ 35u instead of their old way of 50% @ 20u. Both those points are probably on their performance curve, but as many companies do they will use the "99%" data point because most people don't even know how the particle size fits into the equation. People see "99%" and they automatically say in their head that's got to be a whole bunch better than "50%".

That is also why the WIX Tech you spoke to said they are "shooting for 35u". Notice they do reference ISO 4548-12 and the specific oil filters that were used in the ISO test (see that UD?). Click on the image to make it come in a bit larger.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

This is NOT rocket science! You screw the filter on clockwise, you remove it by turning it counter clockwise. The oil goes in, gets filtered, goes into the engine, repeat. That's all you need to know.
I think y'all are trying to see who's brain is bigger than the others with all of these charts, graphs, doo dads, etc.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
This is NOT rocket science! You screw the filter on clockwise, you remove it by turning it counter clockwise. The oil goes in, gets filtered, goes into the engine, repeat. That's all you need to know.


The part in bold red is the "rocket science" part, which requires "all of these charts, graphs, doo dads, etc."

 

[MParr]

Zee06
That’s what I figured.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: MParr
I’m going to throw this out there for you and Zee06 to explain. Could WIX be using a nominal rating when posting 50% at 20 microns?


I'm not sure if I understand how you've phrased your question but I was looking at various Wix filters and comparing their stated nominal rating to their 50% efficiency rating and they did not line up.

Here are a couple of examples:

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=76178

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=39203

Looking for a definition of "nominal micron rating" brings up this succinct and useful explanation from Baldwin:

The term “nominal” micron rating typically means that the filter is capable of removing 50% of a specific size particle, however, some companies’ “nominal” micron ratings may range anywhere from 1 to 98.6% efficient at removing a specific particle size. The term “absolute” micron rating means that the filter is capable of removing at least 98.7% of a specific size particle. This rating is far more accurate.

http://www.baldwinfilter.com/ProductHighlights122010.html

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
This is NOT rocket science! You screw the filter on clockwise, you remove it by turning it counter clockwise. The oil goes in, gets filtered, goes into the engine, repeat. That's all you need to know.


The part in bold red is the "rocket science" part, which requires "all of these charts, graphs, doo dads, etc."

That is all you need to know; is my oil being filtered? Why, yes it is!
Now, on to more important issues; should I use 5W20, or 5W30?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Got your bags packed? ...

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Frankly, ISO55000 was a troll trying to discount the validity of ISO 4548-12 ... he failed.


Reading the threads with you and ISO55000 certainly revealed that he had a very deep dislike for you, but he knew what he was talking about.

Having read ISO 4548-12, I can see why he was saying what he did. An early example in one of the threads is where he refuted the idea being put forward via the batcave that there was unintended bypassing going on. The standard specifically calls for that to be checked before running the test.

As to his wanting to compare 4548-12 to 16889, I haven't read 16889 but have found that the test dust is identical and that the bench testing equipment sold for the testing can test for both standards. Hydraulic oil is also used in both tests. So it looks like he knew what he was talking about when he said he was going to compare the two. Yes 16889 is for very high efficiency purposes and 4548-12 is for less efficient filters, but they use the same testing equipment, the same dust and aim to report on the same performance metrics.

I also don't think he was trying to discredit the test. Simply that to interpret results, you need to better understand the test, as well as ask how realistic is the test compared to real world conditions. That is explored more here:

https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/sites/default/files/MB10046.pdf