Wix vs Wix XP Oil Filters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979


I'm not following your math here. The Wix XP has worse efficiency than most OEM filters. How are you saying they meet or exceed on efficiency when they are worse?


You should direct this question to Wix.

http://www.wixfilters.com/ContactUs.aspx

Certainly Wix would not manufacture an oil filter that didn't meet an auto manufacturer's minimum efficiency benchmarks and then charge a premium price for it.

Maybe they could also explain to you why filter efficiency is just one piece of the puzzle when selecting a oil filter for extended OCI's.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
50% @ 20 microns ... bottom of the barrel on efficiency.


That may be, but I got my 2 cents in before you did. You're late to the party!
laugh.gif



LOL ... doesn't change the fact the efficiency sucks.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Both Wix filters meet or exceed the manufacturer's requirements for filter efficiency.

Many here have notions regarding the value of efficiency ratings below those thresholds.

The trade off here being media loading and bypass operation in extended OCI's.

The Wix filters offer premium construction and rock solid reliability.


People can get all that and even more - like 99+% @20 microns with the Fram Ultra, and probably even for less money.
 
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Certainly Wix would not manufacture an oil filter that didn't meet an auto manufacturer's minimum efficiency benchmarks and then charge a premium price for it.


So just what is that "manufacture's minimum efficiency spec"? It must obviously be worse or equal to 50% @ 20 microns.

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Maybe they could also explain to you why filter efficiency is just one piece of the puzzle when selecting a oil filter for extended OCI's.


Other filter manufactures make long OCI filters (10K ~ 15K miles) that have much better efficiencies to boot. Why cant WIX do it?
 
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: Nate1979


I'm not following your math here. The Wix XP has worse efficiency than most OEM filters. How are you saying they meet or exceed on efficiency when they are worse?


You should direct this question to Wix.

http://www.wixfilters.com/ContactUs.aspx

Certainly Wix would not manufacture an oil filter that didn't meet an auto manufacturer's minimum efficiency benchmarks and then charge a premium price for it.

Maybe they could also explain to you why filter efficiency is just one piece of the puzzle when selecting a oil filter for extended OCI's.


I did not say filter efficiency is important, even though personally I believe it is. I was just pointing out what you said is incorrect. I do not know why they make a filter with less than OEM filter efficiency. But the fact is their XP filter is much less efficient than most factory OEM filters. I want OEM or better which includes filtering which I believe Wix XP falls far far short.
 
1) I suppose it's about time for this topic to arise again; it's been at least a week since this baloney has been argued ...

2) good luck trying to get a straight answer from Wix about their products; their customer service is predicated on canned boiler-plate answers from phone jockeys and keyboard pounding. I have attempted in vain multiple times to get real world data and been shut down repeatedly. That does not mean their filters are unworthy; far from it. It just means their idea of service and mine are miles apart ...

3) Critic - there is zero reason to "pass on the cost" of such a premium filter, because frankly for the OCI you describe there is no benefit to such use. I have posted two recent filter reveals that show the normal Wix/NG can EASILY go 10k miles and probably way more. The two I posted shows 9k miles on one and 150 hours (est 9-10k miles) on another. See these:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3524722/NG_1394____150_hours#Post3524722
and this:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3519801#Post3519801
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure where the error or deviation in logic lies, but I have a hard time believing that Wix would make a premium wire-back synthetic filter that is "bad".

I wish we could get to the bottom of this.

There are a few scenarios:

A.) Wix/Napa Platinum's really do have 50% efficiency at 20 microns. But this doesn't have any significant impact on the filter's performance vs. a filter that has 99% efficiency at 20 microns.

B.) Whatever Wix is doing to rate/test/certify their filters is different than Amsoil and Fram.

I have a hard time believing that Wix makes a filter that is so much inferior than Fram and Amsoil.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
I'm not sure where the error or deviation in logic lies, but I have a hard time believing that Wix would make a premium wire-back synthetic filter that is "bad".

I wish we could get to the bottom of this.


Call WIX Tech Dept ... many have here and they keep getting told the XP is 50% @ 20 micron efficiency. If WIX doesn't know, nobody does.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: EricF
I haven't gotten my hands on the wix xp filters yet, however, what I've got some of my customers doing is going with Mobil 1 & a wix filter. at 6000 miles, change the filter and top the oil off and at 12k, change both out. If they go with Redline, I recommend the same thing, except go to 18k an change both.
So they're simply changing out the filter, but keeping the oil in place with a top off.
Yes, the wix filter can easily go much further than 6k, but for people who are new to synthetics or still believe in the 3000 oil change, this is a good compromise I believe, as it also saves them money on the synthetic oil changes.
I believe a regular Wix will easily to 7500, but I don't think regular Mobil 1 will goto 15k in every car, but I'm comfortable recommending a 12k oci.

I doubt the Wix XP will offer to many advantages aside from more marketing verbage.




IMO your logic is reversed from what it should be. Even our old 94 integra stated change FILTER every other oil change, so 15k on the filter and 7500 on the oil. I dont think youre doing anyone any favors, especially with the redline OCI, without a good UOA basis to justify it.

Id be less concerned about a filter going 15000 miles than some oil.



That's odd.. It really recommended every other for the oil filter? My 95 says to change the oil AND filter every 7,500 miles for normal conditions.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Call WIX Tech Dept ... many have here and they keep getting told the XP is 50% @ 20 micron efficiency. If WIX doesn't know, nobody does.


I just got off the phone with Wix's technical department.

The gentleman I spoke to said they do NOT give out technical information on their filters. But he did say that their regular "WIX" filter (Napa Gold) was to be considered their "Premium" filter, not their XP line (Napa Platinum).

He also stated that the XP line (Napa Platinum) was designed to go for long OCI's and you can't have a super high efficiency rating on a filter going on some long runs, otherwise it would plug up.

He stated that filters that claim 99% efficiency (or something similar) can only be run for typical and stardard OCI lengths unless the engine is absolutely spotless and doesn't shed much metal or create a large amount of solid particulates (contaminates).
 
I guess I agree to an extent.. A high OCI filter (or filter in general) shouldn't be ran to its full amount if the engine is dirty. The gold/ WIX being higher than the XP is just plain silly. Shouldn't it be cheaper then?
 
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
The gold/ WIX being higher than the XP is just plain silly. Shouldn't it be cheaper then?


I made the same comment and he said, "No" ..... Paper is cheaper than wire-backed fiberglass.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
He also stated that the XP line (Napa Platinum) was designed to go for long OCI's and you can't have a super high efficiency rating on a filter going on some long runs, otherwise it would plug up.

He stated that filters that claim 99% efficiency (or something similar) can only be run for typical and stardard OCI lengths unless the engine is absolutely spotless and doesn't shed much metal or create a large amount of solid particulates (contaminates).


Hummm ... well that sounds like a good explanation to make excuses for the bottom rated efficiency of their XP. So the Purolator Synthetic and Fram Ultra are both rated for long OCIs (10K and 15K respectively), and they both have an efficiency about twice the XP.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Call WIX Tech Dept ... many have here and they keep getting told the XP is 50% @ 20 micron efficiency. If WIX doesn't know, nobody does.


I just got off the phone with Wix's technical department.

The gentleman I spoke to said they do NOT give out technical information on their filters.


LOL ... why not, the beta ratio specs for the XP are listed on WIX's website.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Phishin
He also stated that the XP line (Napa Platinum) was designed to go for long OCI's and you can't have a super high efficiency rating on a filter going on some long runs, otherwise it would plug up.

He stated that filters that claim 99% efficiency (or something similar) can only be run for typical and stardard OCI lengths unless the engine is absolutely spotless and doesn't shed much metal or create a large amount of solid particulates (contaminates).


Hummm ... well that sounds like a good explanation to make excuses for the bottom rated efficiency of their XP. So the Purolator Synthetic and Fram Ultra are both rated for long OCIs (10K and 15K respectively), and they both have an efficiency about twice the XP.


With clean oil, you are correct. High efficiency media works great.

But no filter would work just great too with clean oil.

But Wix is trying to tell you that if you actually need real filtration on your 15,000 mile run, high efficiency media may result in a plugged filter and bypass operation.

You'll find the same discussion in filter information from Cummins Fleetguard.

Toyota and other auto manufacturers must agree with Wix when you look at the efficiency of their 10,000 mile rated filters.

It's very possible when we have seen FRAM Ultras collapsed in use (like the BMW filter), it's this scenario that we are seeing.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Phishin
He also stated that the XP line (Napa Platinum) was designed to go for long OCI's and you can't have a super high efficiency rating on a filter going on some long runs, otherwise it would plug up.

He stated that filters that claim 99% efficiency (or something similar) can only be run for typical and stardard OCI lengths unless the engine is absolutely spotless and doesn't shed much metal or create a large amount of solid particulates (contaminates).


Hummm ... well that sounds like a good explanation to make excuses for the bottom rated efficiency of their XP. So the Purolator Synthetic and Fram Ultra are both rated for long OCIs (10K and 15K respectively), and they both have an efficiency about twice the XP.


Likely the reason is that they are using a bottom of the barrel synthetic media that is not able to handle both extended drains and high efficiency. Their Gold line also falls short in the efficiency compared to their competition.
 
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Phishin
He also stated that the XP line (Napa Platinum) was designed to go for long OCI's and you can't have a super high efficiency rating on a filter going on some long runs, otherwise it would plug up.

He stated that filters that claim 99% efficiency (or something similar) can only be run for typical and stardard OCI lengths unless the engine is absolutely spotless and doesn't shed much metal or create a large amount of solid particulates (contaminates).


Hummm ... well that sounds like a good explanation to make excuses for the bottom rated efficiency of their XP. So the Purolator Synthetic and Fram Ultra are both rated for long OCIs (10K and 15K respectively), and they both have an efficiency about twice the XP.


With clean oil, you are correct. High efficiency media works great.

But no filter would work just great too with clean oil.

But Wix is trying to tell you that if you actually need real filtration on your 15,000 mile run, high efficiency media may result in a plugged filter and bypass operation.

You'll find the same discussion in filter information from Cummins Fleetguard.

Toyota and other auto manufacturers must agree with Wix when you look at the efficiency of their 10,000 mile rated filters.

It's very possible when we have seen FRAM Ultras collapsed in use (like the BMW filter), it's this scenario that we are seeing.







Holding capacity and ensuring a filter will not go into bypass during the OCI are the most basic filter tests at the fundamental level of all filter testing and design.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979


Holding capacity and ensuring a filter will not go into bypass during the OCI are the most basic filter tests at the fundamental level of all filter testing and design.


So clearly there are at least two schools of thought here in filter design.

One seems driven by conservative assumptions for real world conditions.

The other by snappy marketing claims.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin


I have a hard time believing that Wix makes a filter that is so much inferior than Fram and Amsoil.


It's really simple, Wix is trying to make as much money per filter as possible. If you cut open to Ultra, Amsoil EAO, and Wix XP side by side you see the Ultra has two layers of media about equal to the thickness of Amsoils single layer of synthetic media, but compare them both to the Wix XP and it's a thin single layer of synthetic media.

It's clear they are saving tons of money on these filters by using combo valves and thinner media while charging MORE per filter than the Ultras unless you find a sale.


Looks like they wanted to jump on the "synthetic marketing" bandwagon and get a piece of the pie as cheap as possible.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
I have a hard time believing that Wix makes a filter that is so much inferior than Fram and Amsoil.


In my mind the Wix XP is every bit as good (probably better) as the Fram Ultra, but I have no way to prove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
The New Tokyo Roki Subaru filter
2
Replies
25
Views
6K
ARCOgraphite
E
I bought a Wix XP for a 5th gen 4runner.
Replies
11
Views
4K
Bellavita
Twisted1
WIX XP Question…
2 3
Replies
41
Views
9K
4WD
L
O'Reilly's MSL line " Wix Xp " knock off( Pic )
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
researcher
A
Fram FE9972 vs WIX 57047XP for 2AR-FE?
Replies
8
Views
3K
ZeeOSix
Back
Top