NAPA Gold or Pure One?

[jmsjags]

Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
If price was the same I would choose a NAPA Gold, if ther price wasn't I would still choose NAPA Gold


why is that? pureone is definitely the better value. it's usually cheaper than NG and even at the same price it filters better than a NG. i don't understand all the infatuation with NGs

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Some prefer more flow than restriction. That's why the NAPA Golds / Wix remain popular. I bought a handful at $3.95 today. The sale lasts all March.

 

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Some prefer more flow than restriction. That's why the NAPA Golds / Wix remain popular.


Will this baseless myth ever die?

PureOne's flow capacity is exceptional. Possibly the best out there. Here's some Some Actual Data instead of the usual cutting open of the can, eyeballing the guts, and proclaiming vague concerns on Internet forums, based upon Purolator having the audacity to use more and higher quality material in their filters than their competitors do.

 

[Gary Allan]

Most filters are invisible in use ...or rather most usages make filters invisible. Most bypass activity is transitional/transient. It's mostly over hyped, imo due to personal observations.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: sbergman27
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Some prefer more flow than restriction. That's why the NAPA Golds / Wix remain popular.


Will this baseless myth ever die?

PureOne's flow capacity is exceptional. Possibly the best out there. Here's some Some Actual Data

... I don't think the sterotype of the PureONE being flow restrictive will ever die, just like the sterotype of FRAM oil filters being the "best" will ever die for some.

If Purolator was smart, they would show similar Flow vs. PSID data on their website so people would understand they are not restrictive. ACDelco did that for their Ultragaurd filters. Purolator - PM me if you need a new marketing guy.

Well, the main reason I emailed Purolator to ask what the "Flow vs. PSID" performance was on the PureONE is because the GM engines have the filter bypass valve built into the engine, and it's typically set to only ~8 PSI, which is pretty low compared to most PureONE filters with a bypass valve in the filter.

Well, as you can see in my thread about the PureONE flow data, I was concerned that at near redline with max oil flow going through the filter it might have enough PSID with hot oil to make the 8 PSI bypass valve open.

I was happy to see that it would not, and it also shows that the PureONE flows very well IMO. I would venture to say that a 5 PSID at 12 GPM is as good or better than any filter out there.

The filter isn't exactly "invisible" at high oil flow conditions. But on grandpa's car going to the grocery store at 1500 RPM, it basically is "invisible".

 

[danthaman1980]

I think NG/Wix and PureOnes are both great filters. I've used both, I like both.

However I typically use NG/Wix more often because I seem to get marginally higher oil pressure/more oil flow with the NG/Wix.

I'm not saying the P1s are restrictive, just that the NG/Wix filters seem to be somewhat less restrictive in my application. My experience is similar with the newer yellow-can P1s as it was in the past with blue-can P1s.

I know P1s are more efficient and in that respect they are a great value - I would suggest trying both and using whichever one you like best.

 

[labman]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
I don't think the sterotype of the PureONE being flow restrictive will ever die, just like the sterotype of FRAM oil filters being the "best" will ever die for some.


Along with Pennzoil is made from parafin and will sludge out like Caker State.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: jmsjags
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
If price was the same I would choose a NAPA Gold, if ther price wasn't I would still choose NAPA Gold


why is that? pureone is definitely the better value. it's usually cheaper than NG and even at the same price it filters better than a NG. i don't understand all the infatuation with NGs

For some applications the Wix is a better built filter imo.

For one of my engines, a 2.2 ecotec, the P1 and the Champ look almost exactly alike, except for the media. Both the Champ and the P1 have very big end caps with less media area, and shorter center stacks that leave part of the media unsupported. They also both display more distortion to the media when removed after use.

The Wix/NG has a better pleat anchoring system, with slightly more media area. The Wix/NG for the ecotec is the only filter I've found that closely resembles the original AC/Hengst design. Only available from AC now as the 458g, which includes a new canister cap and added expense.

I'm not bashing the P1, I use them and have a big stash of them. But for certain applications, better choices are out there imo.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: jmsjags
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
If price was the same I would choose a NAPA Gold, if ther price wasn't I would still choose NAPA Gold


why is that? pureone is definitely the better value. it's usually cheaper than NG and even at the same price it filters better than a NG. i don't understand all the infatuation with NGs

I don't get the infatuation with NG over everything else either. The efficiency rating for most applications is horrible. I don't see them being much better than a Purolator Classic or a ST non-ecore for a lot of applications. They seem like a decent filter but overpriced

.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
If price was the same I would choose a NAPA Gold, if ther price wasn't I would still choose NAPA Gold


why is that? pureone is definitely the better value. it's usually cheaper than NG and even at the same price it filters better than a NG. i don't understand all the infatuation with NGs

I don't get the infatuation with NG over everything else either. The efficiency rating for most applications is horrible. I don't see them being much better than a Purolator Classic or a ST non-ecore for a lot of applications. They seem like a decent filter but overpriced

.


One thing I don't like about the base end bypass valve design on the WIX/NAPA Golds is the fact that the bypass valve assy has no seal ... it just sits metal-to-metal against the hole in the media cartridge.

Plus, the bypass valve and the big honkin' coil spring on the dome end takes up some can length, which means the media cartridge has to be shorter and therefore contains less filtering area than a filter of similar length.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980

However I typically use NG/Wix more often because I seem to get marginally higher oil pressure/more oil flow with the NG/Wix.

I'm not saying the P1s are restrictive, just that the NG/Wix filters seem to be somewhat less restrictive in my application. My experience is similar with the newer yellow-can P1s as it was in the past with blue-can P1s.


That's a little strange, as the only way to see a difference in oil pressure due to the filter being restrictive is if:

a) the oil pressure sensor is located before the filter, or

b) the oil pump is putting out maximum oil pressure - ie, the pump's pressure relief valve is active and controlling the pressure to it's maximum.

I have used ACDelco (standard), ACDelco Ultraguard, Amsoil, WIX/NAPA Gold and PureONE on my Vette and have not seen any oil pressure differences. I've carefully measured with all those filters using the digital built-in oil pressure and oil temperature gauges in the car. So I did a very good 'apples-to-apples' comparison of the oil pressure with each at the same oil temperature. The oil pressure sensor on my Vette is after the oil filter.

 

[danthaman1980]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
That's a little strange, as the only way to see a difference in oil pressure due to the filter being restrictive is if:

a) the oil pressure sensor is located before the filter, or

b) the oil pump is putting out maximum oil pressure - ie, the pump's pressure relief valve is active and controlling the pressure to it's maximum.


So, you're saying you think that there will be no pressure drop across a filter medium??? Or are you saying that, if you did use a more restrictive filter, your oil pump will operate at higher pressure, so that your oil pressure sensor (after the filter) will read the same as it would with an unrestrictive filter???

Darcy's law (and common sense) dictates that, for flow through a medium, there will be pressure drop across the medium. The pressure drop is related to the permeability of the medium.

Oil filter manufacturers know this, and they design filters that give sufficient filtration efficiency while not compromising oil flow. If I'm not mistaken, this is why racing filters are low-efficiency - because high flow and high oil pressure are more important than high efficiency in racing applications. Am I wrong?

Quote:
I have used ACDelco (standard), ACDelco Ultraguard, Amsoil, WIX/NAPA Gold and PureONE on my Vette and have not seen any oil pressure differences.


Which part numbers?

 

[Jakegday]

the wix filter for my application filters 95% @ 30 microns, while the pureone does a much better job of 99.9% @ 20 microns. they're both the same price, so for me, the choice is obvious

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
That's a little strange, as the only way to see a difference in oil pressure due to the filter being restrictive is if:

a) the oil pressure sensor is located before the filter, or

b) the oil pump is putting out maximum oil pressure - ie, the pump's pressure relief valve is active and controlling the pressure to it's maximum.


So, you're saying you think that there will be no pressure drop across a filter medium??? Or are you saying that, if you did use a more restrictive filter, your oil pump will operate at higher pressure, so that your oil pressure sensor (after the filter) will read the same as it would with an unrestrictive filter???


Exactly what you said in red above ... it's been hashed over a dozen different ways, but what it boils down to is IF the filter is more restrictive, the oil pump just works a little harder to force the SAME volume through (positive displacement pump - key issue here), and therefore the pressure at the sensor AFTER the filter will be the same regardless.

The ONLY time you will see a pressure difference on the pressure sensor while running a more restrictive filter (call it filter B) is if the pump is at max pressure (in pressure relief) and filter B is more restrictive than filter A.

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Darcy's law (and common sense) dictates that, for flow through a medium, there will be pressure drop across the medium. The pressure drop is related to the permeability of the medium.


Of course there is STILL a pressure drop across the filter ... has to be anytime there is any flow. BUT, the key here is that the oil pump is a POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT pump, and will try to force the same displacement down the pipes until it hits pressure maximum point (ie, pressure relief/regulator kicks in).

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Oil filter manufacturers know this, and they design filters that give sufficient filtration efficiency while not compromising oil flow. If I'm not mistaken, this is why racing filters are low-efficiency - because high flow and high oil pressure are more important than high efficiency in racing applications. Am I wrong?


Yes, a "racing filter" might be a little less restrictive, but the PureONE is pretty darn free flowing if you ask me. Did you see the thread I posted a while back that showed flow data from Purolator. 5 PSID @ 12 GPM with hot oil is pretty free flowing if you ask me.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Quote:
I have used ACDelco (standard), ACDelco Ultraguard, Amsoil, WIX/NAPA Gold and PureONE on my Vette and have not seen any oil pressure differences.


Which part numbers?


Filter numbers for 2002 Vette with LS6 V8. Don't have them all in front of me right now.

 

[danthaman1980]

Thanks for the explanation, 'Busa. Guess that means its time for me to go yell at my oil pressure gauge for lying to me all these years. Then I'm gonna go incinerate my stash of Wix and Napa Gold filters (and right after I stocked up on 'em up at like $3.95 ea) Then I'm gonna quit my job at Wix and go apply at Bosch/Purolator. Dann werde ich lernen müssen, Deutsch zu sprechen ...

j/k

Seriously though, I really appreciate the data from purolator. Their marketing alone will not win me over, but their willingness to be forthcoming when someone contacts them (and even developing some data at your request) definitely helps. Do you have any data on flow rate vs pressure differential for any other filters? Nice to have data on the PL14006 but it'd be even nicer if we had something to compare it to...

Also, what'd you think of the Ultraguards and EaOs?

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Thanks for the explanation, 'Busa. Guess that means its time for me to go yell at my oil pressure gauge for lying to me all these years. Then I'm gonna go incinerate my stash of Wix and Napa Gold filters (and right after I stocked up on 'em up at like $3.95 ea) Then I'm gonna quit my job at Wix and go apply at Bosch/Purolator. Dann werde ich lernen müssen, Deutsch zu sprechen ...

j/k


Yeah ...

It very well could be the pressure sensor on your vehicle is before the filter. But if not, it could also be due to differences in oil temperature when the comparisons were made. When I took data on my Vette, I used the oil temp gauge (digital to 1 deg F accuracy) to ensure I always compared at the same oil temp and engine RPM.

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Seriously though, I really appreciate the data from purolator. Their marketing alone will not win me over, but their willingness to be forthcoming when someone contacts them (and even developing some data at your request) definitely helps. Do you have any data on flow rate vs pressure differential for any other filters? Nice to have data on the PL14006 but it'd be even nicer if we had something to compare it to...


No, I don't have any other flow data for any other specific filters. I think Purolator was curious themselves because the PL14006 does not have a bypass valve because the filter bypass is built into the engine block. So they probably wanted to ensure their filter flowed well enough to not get into filter bypass territory.

The PL14006 is an average sized filter ... so if it can flow 12 GPM of hot oil and only produce a 5 PSID, I'd say any PureONE will flow well for the engine application it is designed for. From other flow data of various filters with hot oil, most will flow withing +/- 2 PSID of each other. From the data I've seen so far, the PureONE seems to flow better than the "average" filter.

Go snoop around the links on this website for some flow data.
http://www.acdelcotechconnect.com/html/tas_filt_oil_main.jsp

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Also, what'd you think of the Ultraguards and EaOs?


ACDelco Ultraguards are supposed to be very good flowing filters, and efficient also. The Toyota TRD and Royal Purple are clones of the Ultraguard. I'm sure Amsoil EaOs are also in the same league. All good filters IMO. Comes down to how much do you want to pay.

 

[defektes]

Ultraguards scored really well on river-rats testing.