napa gold oil filters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Napa Gold, which is a Wix product, is likely one of if not the best conventional filter out there.
 
I switch between Wix and NAPA "GOLD" depending on price, as they are the same. I buy enough for 4 changes on all my vehicles from http://www.fleetfilter.com Major savings.

Occasionally, PureOne comes on a ridiculously low price sale and I load up on those also. But I am a Wix (NAPA Gold) person.
 
As far as filtration efficiency goes they're generally only average (they don't provide ultra-fine filtration like Amsoil EaO, PureOne, Mobil-1) but as far as construction quality goes they're as good or better than anything else out there.
 
where is it stated that wix/napa gold filters are less efficient than amsoil, pureone, mobil-1?
 
Originally Posted By: turboaccord1
where is it stated that wix/napa gold filters are less efficient than amsoil, pureone, mobil-1?


To my knowledge Amsoil Oil Filters are the best you can buy.

But arent Amsoil/Napa/WIX made by the same company????
 
Wix/Napa Gold are a decent filter, and when purchased through FleetFilter, they are a smokin' deal! Their construction is quite good; their filter media is reasonable, but not outstanding.

I do believe there are "better" filters as far as actual filtration levels, such as EAO's to name one. However, I've NEVER seen nor heard of use of a Wix filter, failing to provide enough filtration or flow, resulting in an engine failure.

There are really only two acceptable choices for engine lubrication maintenance schedules; routine, or extended. Choose your desired method and base your product selection on the method.

To that end, Wix filters used with routine O/Fci's at say 5k mile intervals (possibly up to 10k mile intervals) do a fine job.

If you desire to stretch past 10k miles, your whole stategy should change from "routine" O/Fci's to extended OCI's, preferably with bypass filtration.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Wix/Napa Gold are a decent filter, and when purchased through FleetFilter, they are a smokin' deal! Their construction is quite good; their filter media is reasonable, but not outstanding.

I do believe there are "better" filters as far as actual filtration levels, such as EAO's to name one. However, I've NEVER seen nor heard of use of a Wix filter, failing to provide enough filtration or flow, resulting in an engine failure.

There are really only two acceptable choices for engine lubrication maintenance schedules; routine, or extended. Choose your desired method and base your product selection on the method.

To that end, Wix filters used with routine O/Fci's at say 5k mile intervals (possibly up to 10k mile intervals) do a fine job.

If you desire to stretch past 10k miles, your whole stategy should change from "routine" O/Fci's to extended OCI's, preferably with bypass filtration.



I routinely run a WIX filter in both of my Subaru's for 15,000 miles at a time. UOA's come back with insoluables at 0.2. In this case, it obviously performs in a stellar manner. If I put on enough miles per year, they might do just as well for 30,000 miles...but, I no longer drive either Subaru that far per year, so, I'll never know, as I'll change the filter out once every two years regardless of mileage.
 
I would caution some assumptions here regarding UOA's and insolubles.

I don't believe there is a direct connection between insoluble percentage and filtration. Particle counts are a much more direct way to analyze a filter.

The reason I say this is I've collected over 100 UOAs for diesel engines from this site. I am have an ongoing study comparing the results of UOAs for engines with traditional Full Flow filtration, to that of Bypass Filtration.

We would all likely agree that BP filtration captures particulate down to a much finer size compared to a traditional FF system; that's the whole point, right? But look at the insoluble percentages for most any UOA (diesel or gas, for that matter) and you'll see somewhere between .2% to .6% for nearly all engines, with nearly any brand of FF filter, with or without BP filters. You can concieveably see a BP filterd system have insolubles in the .5 range, and a FF-only system post up a .3 for insolubles. Common sense and particle count analysis would show that the contamination is better controlled with the BP system for sure. What seems to have more influence on the insolubles is the duration of the OCI, not the type of filtration system. I have read FF Fram filters posting insoluble percentages right along with FS2500 bypass systems.

While there might be some indirect relationship, it would be difficult to prove, and I've run the statistical analysis just about every way I can to try and find it.

Particle counts give relative sizes of contamination for a rated occurence rate (hence the beta ratio). There are several types of PC methods as well; all have pros and cons.

Insoluble ratings on a UOA give a percentage of presence, but no indication of size.

What I'm saying is that you're looking for a link between filter performance and insolubles that doesn't directly exist. They are each a part of the puzzle, but neither one can solve the equation on it's own merit.

Of note: oddly, I often see Blackstone make comments about good filtration and insolbules, but I have yet to find the correlation statistically. I think it's more of a false presumption than a reality.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
To that end, Wix filters used with routine O/Fci's at say 5k mile intervals (possibly up to 10k mile intervals) do a fine job.

I almost always use Wix filters, and almost always run a 10k-mile OCI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top