Wix XP line
- Thread starter ssmokn
- Start date
- Status
No but it sure does sound good tho!
Is this a new line of filters to commemorate "10 Years of BITOG"?
Looks like a nice filter but no specs on it just like no specs on the NAPA Platinums. I would run one or just grab a Platinum.
I'm currently running a NP on my '99 454,whats the price on this filter????
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57099XP
I'm currently running a NP on my '99 454,whats the price on this filter????
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57099XP
i use the the wix xp on a dt466e and a cummins ism. they are extended performance with a higher micron rating (20) than the non xp filter (15).
i do not know if the wix xp diesel filter is the same as the wix xp gas filter? mike
i do not know if the wix xp diesel filter is the same as the wix xp gas filter? mike
Last edited:
I've used the XP OTR filters for my ISX but was not impressed with the by pass set up in the filter(combo filter) switched back to fleetguard.
Originally Posted By: jegs
Same as the NAPA Platinum.
Do we know this as fact??
Same as the NAPA Platinum.
Do we know this as fact??
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: jegs
Same as the NAPA Platinum.
Do we know this as fact??
No we dont,not untill someone opens one up and some specs get posted by WIX.
Originally Posted By: jegs
Same as the NAPA Platinum.
Do we know this as fact??
No we dont,not untill someone opens one up and some specs get posted by WIX.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: caravanmike
... they are extended performance with a higher micron rating (20) than the non xp filter (15).
mike
Those kind of um rates are pretty much worthless. Really does not tell us what we want to know as informed folks. At face value, the non-XP would be "better" with the lower um rating, but since there is no real baseline statement for particle size, beta or ISO ratings, it's basically trash info.
I have seen this kind of manure from Wix previously; allow me a couple of examples.
Several years ago, Wix listed their oil filter for my Dmax at "8 um nominal". I thought - WOW - not bad for a full flow filter. Gary Allan and I discussed in great detail. Then a few years ago, the update the specs and it magically became "20um" on the Wix site. What a bummer, but much more realistic for a nominal rating. Now, they list it (along with about 2/3 of the rest of their white-washed data) at 2/20=6/20. They keep revising their info. I suspect the first "8um" rating was a mistake; the others are market updates and finally white-washed worthless info.
Same goes for the fuel filter for that Dmax engine. Used to be a 33910 filter had 4um (presumed nominal but not actually stated). Then they brought out 33960 (plastic body) and the XE version (upgraded media). However, the "XE" "high efficiency" that was supposed to be a "better" filter with upgarded media, but was rated at 7um while the "normal" filter was still rated at 4um. I emailed them; got a canned boilerplate response of "better is better". After several emails back and forth, they just stopped responding to my question as to how they could publically call a 7um filter "better" than a 4um filter; I asked for ISO data and got snubber. Now, at this point, BOTH are rated at 7um and the 4um rating is gone ...
My point? Few if any of us will ever get real data from the major filter makers. They closely hold that data and don't like to share. And the filter makers are often correcting mistakes, or tweaking products. I think that is is Wix has simply stopped putting up their full beta data, and is now "white washing" all the specs to the 2/20=6/20. They are simply tired of informed folks (or at least wanting to be fully informed) of second guessing their efforts and/or calling out their publised mistakes.
Doesn't mean the Wix XP isn't a good filter; probably is. But it's also probably overkill for most applications. It's a market response to the other premium filters from Bosch, Fram, Puro, Mobil, etc. Most of us will never be able to capitalize on the supposed benefits, because most don't ever even get to the pratical end of a "normal filter" FCI ...
Food for thought.
BTW - if you do to the fleetfilter.com website, you can still find much of the oil filter beta data listed there; the "whitewashed" data hasn't migrated to their site yet. You can also still see the fuel filter ratings I spoke of.
... they are extended performance with a higher micron rating (20) than the non xp filter (15).
mike
Those kind of um rates are pretty much worthless. Really does not tell us what we want to know as informed folks. At face value, the non-XP would be "better" with the lower um rating, but since there is no real baseline statement for particle size, beta or ISO ratings, it's basically trash info.
I have seen this kind of manure from Wix previously; allow me a couple of examples.
Several years ago, Wix listed their oil filter for my Dmax at "8 um nominal". I thought - WOW - not bad for a full flow filter. Gary Allan and I discussed in great detail. Then a few years ago, the update the specs and it magically became "20um" on the Wix site. What a bummer, but much more realistic for a nominal rating. Now, they list it (along with about 2/3 of the rest of their white-washed data) at 2/20=6/20. They keep revising their info. I suspect the first "8um" rating was a mistake; the others are market updates and finally white-washed worthless info.
Same goes for the fuel filter for that Dmax engine. Used to be a 33910 filter had 4um (presumed nominal but not actually stated). Then they brought out 33960 (plastic body) and the XE version (upgraded media). However, the "XE" "high efficiency" that was supposed to be a "better" filter with upgarded media, but was rated at 7um while the "normal" filter was still rated at 4um. I emailed them; got a canned boilerplate response of "better is better". After several emails back and forth, they just stopped responding to my question as to how they could publically call a 7um filter "better" than a 4um filter; I asked for ISO data and got snubber. Now, at this point, BOTH are rated at 7um and the 4um rating is gone ...
My point? Few if any of us will ever get real data from the major filter makers. They closely hold that data and don't like to share. And the filter makers are often correcting mistakes, or tweaking products. I think that is is Wix has simply stopped putting up their full beta data, and is now "white washing" all the specs to the 2/20=6/20. They are simply tired of informed folks (or at least wanting to be fully informed) of second guessing their efforts and/or calling out their publised mistakes.
Doesn't mean the Wix XP isn't a good filter; probably is. But it's also probably overkill for most applications. It's a market response to the other premium filters from Bosch, Fram, Puro, Mobil, etc. Most of us will never be able to capitalize on the supposed benefits, because most don't ever even get to the pratical end of a "normal filter" FCI ...
Food for thought.
BTW - if you do to the fleetfilter.com website, you can still find much of the oil filter beta data listed there; the "whitewashed" data hasn't migrated to their site yet. You can also still see the fuel filter ratings I spoke of.
Last edited:
yeah i know for the diesel filters i mentioned the xp was less efficient (as dnewton3 also pointed out), that is how they called it extended duty (less particluate would be caught by the filter!). i would think that filter line would cost less?
with that said we still use the wix filter line on our diesels at work and not had any problems. mike
p.s. now that i think of it the diesel premium filter is xd not xp for (extended duty).
i believe it is a marketing stategy that actually gives you less value. but technically it is extended duty.
with that said we still use the wix filter line on our diesels at work and not had any problems. mike
p.s. now that i think of it the diesel premium filter is xd not xp for (extended duty).
i believe it is a marketing stategy that actually gives you less value. but technically it is extended duty.
Last edited:
When i had a nice conversation with Baldwin last year THEY stated the reason they don't disclose beta numbers etc on there web site is because 90% of the public has no idea what these numbers mean and would make "bad decisions" when comparing filters looking at these numbers.
Originally Posted By: caravanmike
yeah i know for the diesel filters i mentioned the xp was less efficient (as dnewton3 also pointed out), that is how they called it extended duty (less particluate would be caught by the filter!). i would think that filter line would cost less?
with that said we still use the wix filter line on our diesels at work and not had any problems. mike
p.s. now that i think of it the diesel premium filter is xd not xp for (extended duty).
i believe it is a marketing stategy that actually gives you less value. but technically it is extended duty.
The application for my OTR truck filter was not satisfactory at all,35um nominal,never used one again for that and reasons i posted above.
yeah i know for the diesel filters i mentioned the xp was less efficient (as dnewton3 also pointed out), that is how they called it extended duty (less particluate would be caught by the filter!). i would think that filter line would cost less?
with that said we still use the wix filter line on our diesels at work and not had any problems. mike
p.s. now that i think of it the diesel premium filter is xd not xp for (extended duty).
i believe it is a marketing stategy that actually gives you less value. but technically it is extended duty.
The application for my OTR truck filter was not satisfactory at all,35um nominal,never used one again for that and reasons i posted above.
Originally Posted By: daman
When i had a nice conversation with Baldwin last year THEY stated the reason they don't disclose beta numbers etc on there web site is because 90% of the public has no idea what these numbers mean and would make "bad decisions" when comparing filters looking at these numbers.
Then they should just say something like "99% efficient at 20 microns". Everyone can figure that out. Beta ratio is just a fancy way of saying "X% efficient @ Y microns".
ALL the filter manufactures should use the same rating method for the public to make decisions on filtering performance if they want.
When i had a nice conversation with Baldwin last year THEY stated the reason they don't disclose beta numbers etc on there web site is because 90% of the public has no idea what these numbers mean and would make "bad decisions" when comparing filters looking at these numbers.
Then they should just say something like "99% efficient at 20 microns". Everyone can figure that out. Beta ratio is just a fancy way of saying "X% efficient @ Y microns".
ALL the filter manufactures should use the same rating method for the public to make decisions on filtering performance if they want.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: daman
When i had a nice conversation with Baldwin last year THEY stated the reason they don't disclose beta numbers etc on there web site is because 90% of the public has no idea what these numbers mean and would make "bad decisions" when comparing filters looking at these numbers.
Then they should just say something like "99% efficient at 20 microns". Everyone can figure that out. Beta ratio is just a fancy way of saying "X% efficient @ Y microns".
ALL the filter manufactures should use the same rating method for the public to make decisions on filtering performance if they want.
Hey, i agree..
Originally Posted By: daman
When i had a nice conversation with Baldwin last year THEY stated the reason they don't disclose beta numbers etc on there web site is because 90% of the public has no idea what these numbers mean and would make "bad decisions" when comparing filters looking at these numbers.
Then they should just say something like "99% efficient at 20 microns". Everyone can figure that out. Beta ratio is just a fancy way of saying "X% efficient @ Y microns".
ALL the filter manufactures should use the same rating method for the public to make decisions on filtering performance if they want.
Hey, i agree..
Originally Posted By: daman
Looks like a nice filter but no specs on it just like no specs on the NAPA Platinums. I would run one or just grab a Platinum.
I'm currently running a NP on my '99 454,whats the price on this filter????
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57099XP
Daman,
Just curious were you get the part detail and XP information from I do not find anything on the WIX web site but I called my local Parts Plus and they do sell them if ordered just need an hour notice because they are not stocked in the stores only in the local warehouse, I checked the price for 51516XP & 51085XP both $11.52.
Toto.
Looks like a nice filter but no specs on it just like no specs on the NAPA Platinums. I would run one or just grab a Platinum.
I'm currently running a NP on my '99 454,whats the price on this filter????
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57099XP
Daman,
Just curious were you get the part detail and XP information from I do not find anything on the WIX web site but I called my local Parts Plus and they do sell them if ordered just need an hour notice because they are not stocked in the stores only in the local warehouse, I checked the price for 51516XP & 51085XP both $11.52.
Toto.
Originally Posted By: Toto
Originally Posted By: daman
Looks like a nice filter but no specs on it just like no specs on the NAPA Platinums. I would run one or just grab a Platinum.
I'm currently running a NP on my '99 454,whats the price on this filter????
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57099XP
Daman,
Just curious were you get the part detail and XP information from I do not find anything on the WIX web site but I called my local Parts Plus and they do sell them if ordered just need an hour notice because they are not stocked in the stores only in the local warehouse, I checked the price for 51516XP & 51085XP both $11.52.
Toto.
Just off there web site,using the OP part number looked up. That price you posted is very close to a NP,wish we could specs on this filter.
Originally Posted By: daman
Looks like a nice filter but no specs on it just like no specs on the NAPA Platinums. I would run one or just grab a Platinum.
I'm currently running a NP on my '99 454,whats the price on this filter????
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57099XP
Daman,
Just curious were you get the part detail and XP information from I do not find anything on the WIX web site but I called my local Parts Plus and they do sell them if ordered just need an hour notice because they are not stocked in the stores only in the local warehouse, I checked the price for 51516XP & 51085XP both $11.52.
Toto.
Just off there web site,using the OP part number looked up. That price you posted is very close to a NP,wish we could specs on this filter.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
ALL the filter manufactures should use the same rating method for the public to make decisions on filtering performance if they want.
I presume you're making this statement about a dream you had.
There's no way the manufacturers would want what you suggest as it would remove the advantage of marketinglies strategy from the equation.
ALL the filter manufactures should use the same rating method for the public to make decisions on filtering performance if they want.
I presume you're making this statement about a dream you had.
There's no way the manufacturers would want what you suggest as it would remove the advantage of marketing
Originally Posted By: 3311
No micron ratings?
Unfortunately no.
No micron ratings?
Unfortunately no.
- Status
