Napa Platinum single/multipass efficiency?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
103
Location
VA
Googled for a few minuites and didn't come up with anything. Did we ever get numbers for this filter? It would appear that I'd be paying $10+ and assuming that because it's fiberglass media that it must be 'good'. I'd rather not 'assume' this.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: blmlozz
Googled for a few minuites and didn't come up with anything. Did we ever get numbers for this filter? It would appear that I'd be paying $10+ and assuming that because it's fiberglass media that it must be 'good'. I'd rather not 'assume' this.

No numbers yet that i know of,BUT if there anything like there OTR heavy truck filters like the XD and XE lines(witch I'm sure they are)then they will be very efficient at filtration as the ones we use(XE) are 5 mic nom.

I'm currently using the platinums on my vehicles and they seem like fine quality filters.
 
Thanks for the replies. I'll look around some more for a WIX cross-reference. It would be nice if it's as good as the RP filters so I don't have to drive another 20minuites to the pepboys in order to grab one. Although the Fram Ulta's/Extended guard's are in the back of my mind, I'm unsure I'm ready to commit to the brand name on a 550+HP V8 that's going to see track use..
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: daman

No numbers yet that i know of,BUT if there anything like there OTR heavy truck filters like the XD and XE lines(witch I'm sure they are)then they will be very efficient at filtration as the ones we use(XE) are 5 mic nom.


"5 microns Nominal Efficiency" means 50% efficient @ 5 microns. Hard to believe ... have to see published data on that one.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: daman

No numbers yet that i know of,BUT if there anything like there OTR heavy truck filters like the XD and XE lines(witch I'm sure they are)then they will be very efficient at filtration as the ones we use(XE) are 5 mic nom.


"5 microns Nominal Efficiency" means 50% efficient @ 5 microns. Hard to believe ... have to see published data on that one.


Why is that hard to believe? If it was a Purolator you would believe it and not need published data.
 
Originally Posted By: blmlozz
Thanks for the replies. I'll look around some more for a WIX cross-reference. It would be nice if it's as good as the RP filters so I don't have to drive another 20minuites to the pepboys in order to grab one. Although the Fram Ulta's/Extended guard's are in the back of my mind, I'm unsure I'm ready to commit to the brand name on a 550+HP V8 that's going to see track use..


Well, I put on a NAPA Platinum on my 500+ HP GTO.

Zero cold start noise. Runs/sounds fantastic.

Curious about the numbers...
 
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: daman

No numbers yet that i know of,BUT if there anything like there OTR heavy truck filters like the XD and XE lines(witch I'm sure they are)then they will be very efficient at filtration as the ones we use(XE) are 5 mic nom.


"5 microns Nominal Efficiency" means 50% efficient @ 5 microns. Hard to believe ... have to see published data on that one.


Why is that hard to believe? If it was a Purolator you would believe it and not need published data.


I believe he's suggesting this as all the fiberglass media filters I've seen thus far publish filter rates worse than typical mid-tier paper based filters. I haven't had a response to this querry in the other thread I asked this specific question about, but I gather the 'tradeoff' is that fiberglass media filters will filter slightly better over very long OCI's(maybe 12K+?), will flow better and have several other minor advantages. Do they filter 'better' or more effectively in the short term though? Everything I've seen points to 'no'


as far as trying to figure out this filter's effeciency based off looking up the comparable wix, all I've found is straight from Wix's website for a 5706053 ;
Beta Ratio: 2/20=6/20
Max Flow Rate: 10-12 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 21

The Flow rate matches what napa claims, but I can't imagine a $13 filter is rated for 50% @ 21microns.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: daman

No numbers yet that i know of,BUT if there anything like there OTR heavy truck filters like the XD and XE lines(witch I'm sure they are)then they will be very efficient at filtration as the ones we use(XE) are 5 mic nom.


"5 microns Nominal Efficiency" means 50% efficient @ 5 microns. Hard to believe ... have to see published data on that one.


Why is that hard to believe? If it was a Purolator you would believe it and not need published data.


I do read published data from Purolator, so it's not "hearsay" performance from them. It's based on ISO testing standards. Do you even have any kind of reference at all that shows this 'Nominal Efficiency = 5 microns'?
 
Originally Posted By: blmlozz

as far as trying to figure out this filter's effeciency based off looking up the comparable wix, all I've found is straight from Wix's website for a 5706053 ;
Beta Ratio: 2/20=6/20
Max Flow Rate: 10-12 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 21


Well, looking at the data above, apparently the line that says "Nominal Micron Rating: 21" means something different to WIX than what it means as defined by the Filter Manufacturers Council (experts) as "Nominal Efficiency".

I say this because the Beta Ratio data above shows "2/20=6/20", which means 50% efficiency at 6 microns and 95% efficient at 20 microns. Confusing to the consumer.

So in one place "nominal efficiency" is 6 micron, and in another it's 21 microns.
 
Try firing off an Email and see what if they respond.
http://www.napafilters.com/contact/

I have also had good luck getting some Ultra8 filter info via my local Napa Genuine Part(Warehouse/Distribution Center). Called asked who to talk to, was bumped over to a manager. Manager gave me a Email contact of who to ask. Sent a Email in the morning and had a reply with my info when I got home from work.
 
Quote:
.....as far as trying to figure out this filter's effeciency based off looking up the comparable wix, all I've found is straight from Wix's website for a 5706053 ;....

I can't find that number on the Wix site and afaik at this point, Wix has not introduced a comparable full synthetic filter, so unlike the Wix/Napa Gold oil filter comparison, there would be no actual direct spec comparison.

Just speculating, but the specs are likely similar to the new Puro Synthetic, Amsoil Synthetic, and RP. Just fine imo, and not to fret using it for extended ocis. That said, I'm sure that won't satisfy the Bitog inquisitive, which is ok. Hopefully they will publish specs.

Also, nominal rating has been discussed here before, I too have been under the impression the 50% is generally considered the 'nominal' rating. As long as I can see a beta or efficiency that's enough for me, but for those that care, below is a thread regarding 'nominal' rating and differences in definition.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1730250&page=1
 
Quote:
I can't find that number on the Wix site and afaik at this point, Wix has not introduced a comparable full synthetic filter, so unlike the Wix/Napa Gold oil filter comparison, there would be no actual direct spec comparison.

it's the number pulled from their popup page under a 2012 CTS-V.

Quote:
Just fine imo, and not to fret using it for extended ocis. That said, I'm sure that won't satisfy the Bitog inquisitive, which is ok. Hopefully they will publish specs.

It would indeed be nice to know, since my OCI's usually fall between 9-11K it seems, and since middle tier paper filters are good for that long, I'm wondering if a glass media filter like this, RP or an Amsoil EAO would acutally end up filtering the same or worse since it's not being strung out to 15K or more..

Quote:
Try firing off an Email and see what if they respond.

They've been asked before. The defacto response seems to be no response at all. I believe the most informative posts came from one of the managers of a Napa chain and the best he could manage for us was;
Quote:
Ok here's the scoop. This filter will be a direct competition to Amsoil Ea line. I saw one cut apart today and they are identical. Full synthetic wire backed medium, silicone anti-drainback valve, nitrile gasket, coil spring, and high flow area (when applicable). Napa will be offering 3 lines now, all made by Wix. Platinum, Gold (regular re-packaged Wix) and a Silver line which compares to fram and a few others to name a few. They will still offer their [censored], leaky, proselect. (not made by Wix) and the NASCAR line is discontinued.

PS I work at Napa.


If you believe he acutally works for Napa that is..
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2304026&page=3
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: blmlozz
Originally Posted By: sayjac
I can't find that number on the Wix site and afaik at this point, Wix has not introduced a comparable full synthetic filter, so unlike the Wix/Napa Gold oil filter comparison, there would be no actual direct spec comparison.

it's the number pulled from their popup page under a 2012 CTS-V.

Ok, the Wix # is 57060, the 53 is footnote to, available in master pack, thus why I couldn't find it. The main thing I was pointing out though is that's a standard Wix, so no direct comparison to the Napa Plat. Synthetic. And as you obviously know Napa lists no 'efficiency' specs for any Platinum on their site.

Can't answer the strung out to 15k question, but even if beta was listed I'm not sure the multipass ISO test is conducted in that manner. In any case, the only answer now is there are no published specs, until there are I don't think those questions can be answered. That said, if it were me I'd have no worries using it for a 9-11+k oci depending on oil an driving profile. But, that's just me. Good luck in your quest.
 
I was quoted a 70 nominal rating for the Platinum from Wix but that was all I could get. He did also state that Wix will be bringing out their own line of synthetic/wire filters but not this year.
 
So, is the consensus that these are/will be as good as (or better than) the EaOs/RPs/K&N Golds/Bosch Distance Plus/M1 EPs/etc.??
21.gif


Also, who actually makes the RP filters, Champion, or someone else?
Are they worth the premium Peppies gets for them (as compared to all of the others)?
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: daman

No numbers yet that i know of,BUT if there anything like there OTR heavy truck filters like the XD and XE lines(witch I'm sure they are)then they will be very efficient at filtration as the ones we use(XE) are 5 mic nom.


"5 microns Nominal Efficiency" means 50% efficient @ 5 microns. Hard to believe ... have to see published data on that one.


http://www.fleetfilter.com/mm5/merchant....;Category_Code=
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
So, is the consensus that these are/will be as good as (or better than) the EaOs/RPs/K&N Golds/Bosch Distance Plus/M1 EPs/etc.??
21.gif


Also, who actually makes the RP filters, Champion, or someone else?
Are they worth the premium Peppies gets for them (as compared to all of the others)?

good as or better in which respect? My conclusions seem to be;
Glass media filters do not filter as well as traditional paper media filters.
They do however, have more holding capacity, flow slightly better, are usually constructed slightly better and have more filtration capacity, but that may be irrelevent unless you like to go offroad often, live in dusty areas, or are cleaning up an old engine.

From what I can see, there is little advantage in using a glass media filter for anything less than what traditional paper filters have been proven to be good for, which is at least 10K miles, and who where acutally goes 15K miles on an oil?
 
Last edited:
As I posted in the other thread:

Glass media filters are designed for extended drains. The dense glass media has the ability to hold a greater volume of contaminants. This does not mean they are more efficient than a cellulose filter. In fact, due to their greater holding capacity, they will be less efficient than their cellulose counterparts in the multi-pass test because their efficiency won't increase anywhere near as quickly due to load up.

However, this does not mean they won't do as well, or better in single-pass efficiency.

I'm also not familiar with the volume of contaminants used in the multi-pass test (though I'm sure we could find out). As we are all familiar with the relationship between filter load-up and efficiency, a cellulose filter with finer media is going to load up faster, become more efficient quicker and subsequently perform better on this test. However this begs the question as to how well this (the speed at which the filter loads up to obtain its given multi-pass rating) relates to real world conditions in gasoline engines.

Glass media is a different beast. Given that it DOES flow better, one should be able to assume with a relative degree of confidence that this means the filter is in bypass less. If the filter is in bypass less, then more of the oil is going to be filtered.

I don't think it is as easy as just looking at the beta figures or given efficiency spec's and being able to come to a concrete conclusion as to what to use. Though it would sure be nice if we could
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
As I posted in the other thread:

Glass media filters are designed for extended drains. The dense glass media has the ability to hold a greater volume of contaminants. This does not mean they are more efficient than a cellulose filter. In fact, due to their greater holding capacity, they will be less efficient than their cellulose counterparts in the multi-pass test because their efficiency won't increase anywhere near as quickly due to load up.

However, this does not mean they won't do as well, or better in single-pass efficiency.

I'm also not familiar with the volume of contaminants used in the multi-pass test (though I'm sure we could find out). As we are all familiar with the relationship between filter load-up and efficiency, a cellulose filter with finer media is going to load up faster, become more efficient quicker and subsequently perform better on this test. However this begs the question as to how well this (the speed at which the filter loads up to obtain its given multi-pass rating) relates to real world conditions in gasoline engines.

Glass media is a different beast. Given that it DOES flow better, one should be able to assume with a relative degree of confidence that this means the filter is in bypass less. If the filter is in bypass less, then more of the oil is going to be filtered.

I don't think it is as easy as just looking at the beta figures or given efficiency spec's and being able to come to a concrete conclusion as to what to use. Though it would sure be nice if we could
grin.gif



Thanks for that explanation, OVERKILL!
thumbsup2.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top