Wix XP & Napa Platinum

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Maybe the tech call center doesn't know what they're talking about.

How would they calculate 2/20=6/20 for their regular filters? You said they're 95%@20. What's the other value?


The WIX tech flat told me that the XP was "50% efficient at 20 microns". Give them a call to find out first hand. Others who don't believe it have also called and were told the same thing.

2/20=6/2 is a pair of efficiencies. I think you have a mis-print (what you have is impossible) ... it should be "2/20=6/20. Which means:

B2=6 (50% @ 6 microns)

and

B20=20 (95% @ 20 microns)

 

[BikeWhisperer]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Maybe the tech call center doesn't know what they're talking about.

How would they calculate 2/20=6/20 for their regular filters? You said they're 95%@20. What's the other value?


If I look up the Wix XP filters for my vehicles, they both list the beta ratio at 2=20 which means 50% @ 20 microns. If I look up the standard Wix the beta ration is listed at 2/20=6/20 which means 50% @ 6 microns and 95% @ 20 microns.

For a full synthetic filter, the Fram Ultra is hard to beat. They are reasonably priced, constructed well, and have excellent efficiency. Wix's reasoning for the XP's low efficiency is [censored], synthetic media can have high efficiency and high flow because the media has way more pore space per square inch than paper or blended media.

However if you use a paper or blended media filter, the Wix construction is far better than other main brands. They have more pleats that are evenly spaced than others and you don't see numerous posts showing media failures anywhere.

 

[hatt]

I've looked at several sources and everyone using the conventional statement. Why would Wix come up with an oddball. I guess it's a similar question of why their flagship filter has such low efficiency.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: hatt
I've looked at several sources and everyone using the conventional statement. Why would Wix come up with an oddball. I guess it's a similar question of why their flagship filter has such low efficiency.


Call WIX's Tech Dept ... they will tell you it's all 'proprietary information'.

There's no law that says they can't come up with a different way to express beta ratio data.

 

[AuthorEditor]

Just a general observation that I have made in other threads. It seems companies are moving away from making clear efficiency claims on their websites and filter boxes. Just a couple of years ago it seemed everybody was touting XX% efficiency at XXmicrons, but most have stopped. Fram is a notable exception. I wonder why?

 

[yvon_la]

percentage of efficacy ? lol never bothered with that since i assume tho that those people wouldnt be stupid enough to call it a filter only to find out it isnt. i am pretty sure there are standard ( official ) to filter .this is why i went with walmart brand of filter ,because walmart can be an annoyance if what you send walmart isnt satisfactory . good luck afterward selling elsewhere . nha me my main concern as always been the bypass place ( where it is situated)

 

[goodtimes]

Wix hasn't been able to invent a free flowing, high capacity, synthetic filter with better efficiency than 50%@20 microns, is what I see. It seems only Fram can reach 99.9%, or do they? We only go by what they say. No one else seems as gifted as Fram inventors? Too bad there aren't more independent non biased standardized tests, and real world tests using real car engines.

 

[yvon_la]

nha fram claim are veridict .but then they ve been doing this a long time ,are they perfect ? come on give me a brake when did they add the grill on the tough guard ? not that long ago lol!in the filter industry there is space for improvement . would it benefit new car ? hahahahahaha! so if it doesnt benefit new car ,what car would benefit ? do you live in a red dirt road in the carolina ? yep you would benefit etc etc .oil filter is about the futur but they suck as a prove it to me today item . i m pretty sure someone will create a system to test this long term effect

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
It seems companies are moving away from making clear efficiency claims on their websites and filter boxes. Just a couple of years ago it seemed everybody was touting XX% efficiency at XXmicrons, but most have stopped. Fram is a notable exception. I wonder why?

Do note that the claims of efficiency (and dirty holding capacity) ars always made for one particular filter model, too, which may or may not be representative of other filters in the lineup.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Wix hasn't been able to invent a free flowing, high capacity, synthetic filter with better efficiency than 50%@20 microns, is what I see. It seems only Fram can reach 99.9%, or do they? We only go by what they say. No one else seems as gifted as Fram inventors? Too bad there aren't more independent non biased standardized tests, and real world tests using real car engines.


Fram isnt the only one. Purolator made a good efficiency full synthetic filter.

 

[AuthorEditor]

I hear you on the efficiency ratings being limited to just a few filters, but at least Fram is telling us something. Though the statement is not well worded.
Quote:
2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Fram isnt the only one. Purolator made a good efficiency full synthetic filter.
"Made" is the operative word, because although they may still make one, they do not use industry standard ISO tests results to state the efficiency like they once did. The use weasly marketing phrases like "99% Dirt Removal Power™" instead.

 

[901Memphis]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
It seems companies are moving away from making clear efficiency claims on their websites and filter boxes. Just a couple of years ago it seemed everybody was touting XX% efficiency at XXmicrons, but most have stopped. Fram is a notable exception. I wonder why?

Do note that the claims of efficiency (and dirty holding capacity) ars always made for one particular filter model, too, which may or may not be representative of other filters in the lineup.


Yes this is true, I emailed Fram and got the holding capacity for the filters I use. Compared to the XG8A which is 32 grams.



XG7317-13 grams

XG3387A- 10 grams

XG3980- 13-15 grams

XG3600- 13-15 grams

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Wix hasn't been able to invent a free flowing, high capacity, synthetic filter with better efficiency than 50%@20 microns, is what I see. It seems only Fram can reach 99.9%, or do they? We only go by what they say. No one else seems as gifted as Fram inventors? Too bad there aren't more independent non biased standardized tests, and real world tests using real car engines.


Fram isnt the only one. Purolator made a good efficiency full synthetic filter.


I did say Purolator's Bosch D+, but did any besides Fram make 99.9%@20? I believe this is the new Fram number? High efficiency filters should plug up faster, sort of how it works since they catch more. But they say no doesn't plug up faster, even extend the use. Miracle workers at Fram Group LLC. Maybe the two ply media has a lot to do with it.

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer


Wix's reasoning for the XP's low efficiency is [censored], synthetic media can have high efficiency and high flow because the media has way more pore space per square inch than paper or blended media.



I really like the way we decide 50% @ 20 microns is "poor" efficiency.

Obviously Wix knows something about designing an automotive oil filter correctly.

But we're all susceptible to the marketing claims of the commercial brands shouting... "Buy me! No, buy me instead!"

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer


Wix's reasoning for the XP's low efficiency is [censored], synthetic media can have high efficiency and high flow because the media has way more pore space per square inch than paper or blended media.



I really like the way we decide 50% @ 20 microns is "poor" efficiency.

Obviously Wix knows something about designing an automotive oil filter correctly.

But we're all susceptible to the marketing claims of the commercial brands shouting... "Buy me! No, buy me instead!"


In my book "poor" = not at OEM level or better. So yes, Wix XP has poor filtering compared to standard OEM filters like AC Delco and Motorcraft to name a few.

 

[yvon_la]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer


Wix's reasoning for the XP's low efficiency is [censored], synthetic media can have high efficiency and high flow because the media has way more pore space per square inch than paper or blended media.



I really like the way we decide 50% @ 20 microns is "poor" efficiency.

Obviously Wix knows something about designing an automotive oil filter correctly.

But we're all susceptible to the marketing claims of the commercial brands shouting... "Buy me! No, buy me instead!"


In my book "poor" = not at OEM level or better. So yes, Wix XP has poor filtering compared to standard OEM filters like AC Delco and Motorcraft to name a few.

kind of unfair to all the other filter maker lol, acdelco ecore might not be for more then 5000 mile but gees they sure give insanelly good result within those 5000 miles

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Wix hasn't been able to invent a free flowing, high capacity, synthetic filter with better efficiency than 50%@20 microns, is what I see. It seems only Fram can reach 99.9%, or do they? We only go by what they say. No one else seems as gifted as Fram inventors? Too bad there aren't more independent non biased standardized tests, and real world tests using real car engines.


Fram is referencing the ISO 4548-12 test spec in their efficiency claims, so you can bet they will be what they claim. Otherwise other filter companies could jump on the them with a false advertising lawsuit.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
It seems companies are moving away from making clear efficiency claims on their websites and filter boxes. Just a couple of years ago it seemed everybody was touting XX% efficiency at XXmicrons, but most have stopped. Fram is a notable exception. I wonder why?

Do note that the claims of efficiency (and dirty holding capacity) ars always made for one particular filter model, too, which may or may not be representative of other filters in the lineup.


Fram goes one step further at least, and specifies the efficiency testing is based on 3 different sized filters.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Fram isnt the only one. Purolator made a good efficiency full synthetic filter.
"Made" is the operative word, because although they may still make one, they do not use industry standard ISO tests results to state the efficiency like they once did. The use weasly marketing phrases like "99% Dirt Removal Power™" instead.


Yep, nobody has really found out what the new line of Purolator's are in terms of efficiency. It's now all dumbed down now with their "Dirt Removal Power" statement.