Alternate numbers are PH8A and PH16. It is common thought that the 51515 is just the longer version of the 51085, but per the wix look up page, they are different. The smaller one actually has better filtration numbers and the media is different. for the smaller 51085 it is just listed paper. The larger is listed paper/glass. What is the significance of the glass in the larger one and why would the filtration be worse. Most filters show better filtration for the larger filter.
wix 51515 vs 51085
- Thread starter jstutz
- Start date
- Status
The filter that you really need to worry about is the air filter . The most important thing about an oil filter in the long run is that is doesn't fail. 99% of vehicles will never notice any difference in filters used in the life of their vehicle.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The filter that you really need to worry about is the air filter . The most important thing about an oil filter in the long run is that is doesn't fail. 99% of vehicles will never notice any difference in filters used in the life of their vehicle.
I realize that the small difference in efficiency will not make any real difference, but im curious to the differences.
The filter that you really need to worry about is the air filter . The most important thing about an oil filter in the long run is that is doesn't fail. 99% of vehicles will never notice any difference in filters used in the life of their vehicle.
I realize that the small difference in efficiency will not make any real difference, but im curious to the differences.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: jstutz
Alternate numbers are PH8A and PH16. It is common thought that the 51515 is just the longer version of the 51085, but per the wix look up page, they are different. The smaller one actually has better filtration numbers and the media is different.
Unless I'm missing somthing, you are incorrect.
Wix states the Beta 2/20 for these filters as the following:
51515: 13/23
51085: 15/28
Lower numbers are "better" filtration in Beta ratings. The 51515 is "better" at filration. It is larger. This is the common phenomenon, but there are examples where this is not true.
For example -
51311: 8/21
51307: 7/18
These two are by far more efficient that the two you mention, use the same thread pitch and gasket, have the same can diameter, and are SHORTER in height. Therefore, they are actually "smaller" in total volume. However, volume of the can does not tell the whole story. Other things are in play, such as the type of media, density of media, total area of media, etc etc. Also, you have to look at the other characteristics such as bypass settings; the 51311 is at 16 psi, where the other three are around 8-11; food for thought.
Further, what the second two filters may not have in contrast to the first two are as long a life cycle. As our dear departed Gary Allan used to profess; you cannot avert the filtration triangle. Efficiency, size and lifecycle are inter-related and if you hold any two as a constant, the third characteristic generally moves inversely, (typically but not always) in proprotion.
For any "normal" OCI, I suspect the 51307 will do a better job at filtration and have plenty of life cycle; it is "better", yet ironically smaller, than either the 51515 or 51085.
When selecting alternative filters, you must CAREFULLY assess all the criteria, and not just one characteristic.
Alternate numbers are PH8A and PH16. It is common thought that the 51515 is just the longer version of the 51085, but per the wix look up page, they are different. The smaller one actually has better filtration numbers and the media is different.
Unless I'm missing somthing, you are incorrect.
Wix states the Beta 2/20 for these filters as the following:
51515: 13/23
51085: 15/28
Lower numbers are "better" filtration in Beta ratings. The 51515 is "better" at filration. It is larger. This is the common phenomenon, but there are examples where this is not true.
For example -
51311: 8/21
51307: 7/18
These two are by far more efficient that the two you mention, use the same thread pitch and gasket, have the same can diameter, and are SHORTER in height. Therefore, they are actually "smaller" in total volume. However, volume of the can does not tell the whole story. Other things are in play, such as the type of media, density of media, total area of media, etc etc. Also, you have to look at the other characteristics such as bypass settings; the 51311 is at 16 psi, where the other three are around 8-11; food for thought.
Further, what the second two filters may not have in contrast to the first two are as long a life cycle. As our dear departed Gary Allan used to profess; you cannot avert the filtration triangle. Efficiency, size and lifecycle are inter-related and if you hold any two as a constant, the third characteristic generally moves inversely, (typically but not always) in proprotion.
For any "normal" OCI, I suspect the 51307 will do a better job at filtration and have plenty of life cycle; it is "better", yet ironically smaller, than either the 51515 or 51085.
When selecting alternative filters, you must CAREFULLY assess all the criteria, and not just one characteristic.
Last edited:
Perhaps one of us is confused. it was explaned to me that the wix filter 51515 is 2/20=13/23 so at 20um it has a Beta ratio of 23. that would make it 95.6% efficient at 20 um. This is not better than the 51085 which is beta =28 which is 96.4 at 20um. I believe smaller Beta numbers are not better. Please see http://blog.exair.com/2010/09/20/understanding-oil-filter-beta-ratios/
dnewton, im at work and dont have time to look up the filtration triangle but that looks very interesting. Do you know what the advantage of the paper with glass is over just paper or vice versa. I do understand there is more to picking a filter than just the Beta numbers but this was just suprising to see two fairly similar filters and the larger one being less efficient.
Thanks for posting
dnewton, im at work and dont have time to look up the filtration triangle but that looks very interesting. Do you know what the advantage of the paper with glass is over just paper or vice versa. I do understand there is more to picking a filter than just the Beta numbers but this was just suprising to see two fairly similar filters and the larger one being less efficient.
Thanks for posting
Last edited:
Afaik, 2/20=13/23 means 50%@13um, 95%@23um.
The first pairs of numbers - 2/20 - are the efficiencies.
The second pairs of numbers - 13/23 - are the corresponding microns.
That being the case, the larger 51515 is the more efficient rated filter.
The first pairs of numbers - 2/20 - are the efficiencies.
The second pairs of numbers - 13/23 - are the corresponding microns.
That being the case, the larger 51515 is the more efficient rated filter.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Afaik, 2/20=13/23 means 50%@13um, 95%@23um.
The first pairs of numbers - 2/20 - are the efficiencies.
The second pairs of numbers - 13/23 - are the corresponding microns.
That being the case, the larger 51515 is the more efficient rated filter.
Exactly ... good explanation.
Afaik, 2/20=13/23 means 50%@13um, 95%@23um.
The first pairs of numbers - 2/20 - are the efficiencies.
The second pairs of numbers - 13/23 - are the corresponding microns.
That being the case, the larger 51515 is the more efficient rated filter.
Exactly ... good explanation.
Okay, i understand now. It looks as if i was reading the x/x=y/y incorrectly. I thought the 2/20 was the particle size not the Beta numbers. dnewotn3, I see now what you were saying. If the 2/20 are the two beta numbers then yes the following particle size numbers would indicate better filtration. I thought the 20 number was a um rating because if you go to say Purolator's website they say "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001 **As applicable". Frams website also says that. I assumed that the 20 um particle was a benchmark.
It would also be nice if there was an industry standard to measure flow rate. Looking at most of wix filters, many just say 7-9 gal/min. Well with what viscosity of fluid and what pressure? It makes it hard to choose a filter. For most of my vehicles it really dont matter. My VQ35, i would like to choose the filter with a higher flow rate. As newotn mentioned above about the triangle, it is difficult to draw that triangle.
Originally Posted By: jstutz
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The filter that you really need to worry about is the air filter . The most important thing about an oil filter in the long run is that is doesn't fail. 99% of vehicles will never notice any difference in filters used in the life of their vehicle.
I realize that the small difference in efficiency will not make any real difference, but im curious to the differences.
I use the largest filter I can when possible .It usually doesn't cost anymore and it feels good though I never will see any difference.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The filter that you really need to worry about is the air filter . The most important thing about an oil filter in the long run is that is doesn't fail. 99% of vehicles will never notice any difference in filters used in the life of their vehicle.
I realize that the small difference in efficiency will not make any real difference, but im curious to the differences.
I use the largest filter I can when possible .It usually doesn't cost anymore and it feels good though I never will see any difference.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Afaik, 2/20=13/23 means 50%@13um, 95%@23um.
The first pairs of numbers - 2/20 - are the efficiencies.
The second pairs of numbers - 13/23 - are the corresponding microns.
That being the case, the larger 51515 is the more efficient rated filter.
Exactly ... good explanation.
Yeah, I learned that excellent explanation from a member. Actually I cut and pasted that explanation from a PM, just inserted the specific microns.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Afaik, 2/20=13/23 means 50%@13um, 95%@23um.
The first pairs of numbers - 2/20 - are the efficiencies.
The second pairs of numbers - 13/23 - are the corresponding microns.
That being the case, the larger 51515 is the more efficient rated filter.
Exactly ... good explanation.
Yeah, I learned that excellent explanation from a member. Actually I cut and pasted that explanation from a PM, just inserted the specific microns.
Originally Posted By: jstutz
It would also be nice if there was an industry standard to measure flow rate. Looking at most of wix filters, many just say 7-9 gal/min. Well with what viscosity of fluid and what pressure? It makes it hard to choose a filter. For most of my vehicles it really dont matter. My VQ35, i would like to choose the filter with a higher flow rate. As newotn mentioned above about the triangle, it is difficult to draw that triangle.
The filters are usually tested per ISO 4548, Part 12 (see below). The nominal "7-9 gpm/min" spec you're referring to probably means that is the hot oil volume that filter will flow before the bypass valve gets close to opening. Most filters will flow plenty well enough for the VQ35.
Here's a thread you might want to read about flow vs. PSID on a PureOne that was bench tested by Purolator: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2088643&page=1
ISO 4548-12:2000
-------------------
Methods of test for full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines -- Part 12: Filtration efficiency using particle counting, and contaminant retention capacity.
This part of ISO 4548 specifies a multi-pass filtration test with continuous contaminant injection and using the online particle counting method for evaluating the performance of full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines.
The test procedure determines the contaminant capacity of a filter, its particulate removal characteristics and differential pressure.
This test is intended for application to filter elements having a rated flow between 4 l/min and 600 l/min and with an efficiency of less than 99 % at a particle size greater than 10 microns.
It would also be nice if there was an industry standard to measure flow rate. Looking at most of wix filters, many just say 7-9 gal/min. Well with what viscosity of fluid and what pressure? It makes it hard to choose a filter. For most of my vehicles it really dont matter. My VQ35, i would like to choose the filter with a higher flow rate. As newotn mentioned above about the triangle, it is difficult to draw that triangle.
The filters are usually tested per ISO 4548, Part 12 (see below). The nominal "7-9 gpm/min" spec you're referring to probably means that is the hot oil volume that filter will flow before the bypass valve gets close to opening. Most filters will flow plenty well enough for the VQ35.
Here's a thread you might want to read about flow vs. PSID on a PureOne that was bench tested by Purolator: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2088643&page=1
ISO 4548-12:2000
-------------------
Methods of test for full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines -- Part 12: Filtration efficiency using particle counting, and contaminant retention capacity.
This part of ISO 4548 specifies a multi-pass filtration test with continuous contaminant injection and using the online particle counting method for evaluating the performance of full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines.
The test procedure determines the contaminant capacity of a filter, its particulate removal characteristics and differential pressure.
This test is intended for application to filter elements having a rated flow between 4 l/min and 600 l/min and with an efficiency of less than 99 % at a particle size greater than 10 microns.
"""As our dear departed Gary Allan..."""
Where did he go?
Steve
Where did he go?
Steve
Originally Posted By: steve20
"""As our dear departed Gary Allan..."""
Where did he go?
Steve
Heaven!!!
"""As our dear departed Gary Allan..."""
Where did he go?
Steve
Heaven!!!
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: steve20
"""As our dear departed Gary Allan..."""
Where did he go?
Steve
Heaven!!!
And let's leave it at that, please, and not tread dangerously into RSP territory.
Originally Posted By: steve20
"""As our dear departed Gary Allan..."""
Where did he go?
Steve
Heaven!!!
And let's leave it at that, please, and not tread dangerously into RSP territory.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: jstutz
Okay, i understand now. It looks as if i was reading the x/x=y/y incorrectly. I thought the 2/20 was the particle size not the Beta numbers. dnewotn3, I see now what you were saying. If the 2/20 are the two beta numbers then yes the following particle size numbers would indicate better filtration. I thought the 20 number was a um rating because if you go to say Purolator's website they say "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001 **As applicable". Frams website also says that. I assumed that the 20 um particle was a benchmark.
You can find all kinds of Beta reading, but I'll simplify it for you.
The "Beta" is simply a rating system that is shorthand noted for efficienty ratings at percentage (ratio) for a stated particle size with multi-pass strategy.
When you see "2/20 = 15/23" here is how that breaks down:
The "2" is the number under an implied "1" ( = 1/"2" = 50%) and subtraced from 100%, giving 50%.
The "20" is the number under an implied "1" ( = 1/"20" = 5%) and sutracted from 100%, giving 95%.
The "15" is the smallest particle reasonably caught in um size at that 50% efficiency. (50% of the 15um particles will pass; 50% are caught).
The "23" is the smallest particle reasonably caught in um size at the 95% efficiency. (5% of the 23um particles will pass; 95% are caught).
Occasionally, you'll see a Beta with three numbers, such as "2/20/75 = 15/23/30". That "75" is figured the same way; 1/75 = .0133333; therefore showing efficiency at 98.667%. At times, this is referred to as the "absolute" rating. The "absolute"ness of a filter is at times determined by the filter maker. Arguably, how can anything be "absolute" in efficiency when some portion of contamination passes? But, it's an industry accepted concept, so we roll with it. As long as we are given some numbers to quantify the efficiency and particle size, we have reasonable means to compare/contrast performance from filter to filter; the standardization is reasonably understood. A good example of this three-number rating is the Wix oil filter for the Dmax engine; #57202. That filter is 2/20/75 = 8/20/25. A really darn good full flow filter; 50% efficient at only 8um is really outstanding, and "absolute" at 25 um ain't bad either ...
As a mass generalization, the "bigger" the filter the "better" the filtration. However, as I've already proven, there are always excpetions to the rules.
Okay, i understand now. It looks as if i was reading the x/x=y/y incorrectly. I thought the 2/20 was the particle size not the Beta numbers. dnewotn3, I see now what you were saying. If the 2/20 are the two beta numbers then yes the following particle size numbers would indicate better filtration. I thought the 20 number was a um rating because if you go to say Purolator's website they say "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001 **As applicable". Frams website also says that. I assumed that the 20 um particle was a benchmark.
You can find all kinds of Beta reading, but I'll simplify it for you.
The "Beta" is simply a rating system that is shorthand noted for efficienty ratings at percentage (ratio) for a stated particle size with multi-pass strategy.
When you see "2/20 = 15/23" here is how that breaks down:
The "2" is the number under an implied "1" ( = 1/"2" = 50%) and subtraced from 100%, giving 50%.
The "20" is the number under an implied "1" ( = 1/"20" = 5%) and sutracted from 100%, giving 95%.
The "15" is the smallest particle reasonably caught in um size at that 50% efficiency. (50% of the 15um particles will pass; 50% are caught).
The "23" is the smallest particle reasonably caught in um size at the 95% efficiency. (5% of the 23um particles will pass; 95% are caught).
Occasionally, you'll see a Beta with three numbers, such as "2/20/75 = 15/23/30". That "75" is figured the same way; 1/75 = .0133333; therefore showing efficiency at 98.667%. At times, this is referred to as the "absolute" rating. The "absolute"ness of a filter is at times determined by the filter maker. Arguably, how can anything be "absolute" in efficiency when some portion of contamination passes? But, it's an industry accepted concept, so we roll with it. As long as we are given some numbers to quantify the efficiency and particle size, we have reasonable means to compare/contrast performance from filter to filter; the standardization is reasonably understood. A good example of this three-number rating is the Wix oil filter for the Dmax engine; #57202. That filter is 2/20/75 = 8/20/25. A really darn good full flow filter; 50% efficient at only 8um is really outstanding, and "absolute" at 25 um ain't bad either ...
As a mass generalization, the "bigger" the filter the "better" the filtration. However, as I've already proven, there are always excpetions to the rules.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: jstutz
It would also be nice if there was an industry standard to measure flow rate. Looking at most of wix filters, many just say 7-9 gal/min. Well with what viscosity of fluid and what pressure? It makes it hard to choose a filter. For most of my vehicles it really dont matter. My VQ35, i would like to choose the filter with a higher flow rate. As newotn mentioned above about the triangle, it is difficult to draw that triangle.
Generally, filters recommended for specific applications are flow rated WELL above the equipment required rate. If you see an oil filter rated at "7-9 gpm", then the engine is typically only running about 50-60% of that. Oil filters represent a very small fraction of the total flow resistance; the bulk of the pressure restriction comes from the internal engine clearances, etc. Under normal conditions the filter is not the obstruction people think it to be. The filter will pass and flow way more than the engine requires.
It would also be nice if there was an industry standard to measure flow rate. Looking at most of wix filters, many just say 7-9 gal/min. Well with what viscosity of fluid and what pressure? It makes it hard to choose a filter. For most of my vehicles it really dont matter. My VQ35, i would like to choose the filter with a higher flow rate. As newotn mentioned above about the triangle, it is difficult to draw that triangle.
Generally, filters recommended for specific applications are flow rated WELL above the equipment required rate. If you see an oil filter rated at "7-9 gpm", then the engine is typically only running about 50-60% of that. Oil filters represent a very small fraction of the total flow resistance; the bulk of the pressure restriction comes from the internal engine clearances, etc. Under normal conditions the filter is not the obstruction people think it to be. The filter will pass and flow way more than the engine requires.
Last edited:
Thank you all. It took me a little circling around but I believe I get it now. This is what I still love about this site.
newton, the reason i asked about better flow for the VQ was a lot of them have a rattle upon start up from not having enough oil pressure to the timing chain tensioner. I have read people having better results from different filters. I assume this could only be related to oil flow or ADBV quality. One guy reported that using pure ones that the smaller one did better. Not sure if it was just filter to filter variation or if there is really something with the smaller filter. This goes against the flow theory though as the media is the same and the size is smaller. Actually i changed my filter from the factory one to the pure one and the startup noise is almost completely gone. Then agian, it is getting hotter out so the oil is thinner. It really did seem immediate when i switched out the filter. I changed the filter halfway thru the OCI just to see if the filter would make a difference so the oil is a constant.
newton, the reason i asked about better flow for the VQ was a lot of them have a rattle upon start up from not having enough oil pressure to the timing chain tensioner. I have read people having better results from different filters. I assume this could only be related to oil flow or ADBV quality. One guy reported that using pure ones that the smaller one did better. Not sure if it was just filter to filter variation or if there is really something with the smaller filter. This goes against the flow theory though as the media is the same and the size is smaller. Actually i changed my filter from the factory one to the pure one and the startup noise is almost completely gone. Then agian, it is getting hotter out so the oil is thinner. It really did seem immediate when i switched out the filter. I changed the filter halfway thru the OCI just to see if the filter would make a difference so the oil is a constant.
- Status
