Toughguard vs wix

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
TG has held up well for most. Unless there is a common theme of cardboard not holding up, the TG gets my vote since i choose filtration over build (unless its built like a puro)
No cardboard in the filter.
 
I like the construction of the Wix or NAPA Gold better.

There's a real coil style spring.

Metal endcaps.

Price and filter efficiency are comparable.

Wix has better QC.

Wix wins by a furlong.
 
I highlighted your two technical considerations. What do those get you, technically?

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
I like the construction of the Wix or NAPA Gold better.

There's a real coil style spring.

Metal endcaps.


Price and filter efficiency are comparable.

Wix has better QC.

Wix wins by a furlong.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I highlighted your two technical considerations. What do those get you, technically?

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
I like the construction of the Wix or NAPA Gold better.

There's a real coil style spring.

Metal endcaps.


Price and filter efficiency are comparable.

Wix has better QC.

Wix wins by a furlong.



A better constructed oil filter.


But isn't the improved QC the important thing here.

We know all oil filters generally perform well day in and day out.

But when you pull a dud out of the box and install it, that's when you have a problem.

So which company makes more "ready for the weekend Friday"/"hung over Monday" oil filters?

FRAM or Wix?
 
Hi,
I work at FRAM as the tech director. WIX anything simply does not even come close to the filtering efficiency of even the least expensive FRAM filter. The best WIX can do is mid 80% efficiency @20 microns. The WIX XP is far worse at near 50% (this info from BITOG members who have contacted WIX).
FRAM is the largest OE filter supplier in the world making filters for Ford, GM, Honda, Subaru, Porshe and many others. Filer efficiency is from 94.7% for EG to 99+% @ 20 microns for TG and Ultra. That said, at 4k OCI's, any decent brand name filter would be fine for you.
 
Until and unless I see an authoritative link posted here showing the topic'd Wix/(Napa Gold) filter at the efficiency just mentioned, I'll take the betas published on Wix website showing the typical Wix/(Napa Gold) ~95%@20um to be the efficiency. Purposely not repeating the mentioned vague efficiency because afaik that has never been a quoted efficiency for Wix filters. In other words until proven otherwise, ~95@20um it is, and anything else is unproven hearsay.

Not so coincidentally perhaps, it does remind me of the now 'proven false' claim recently that Wix is using 'combo valves' in the Wix XP line and Wix 'labeled' (not made fors) and Napa Gold automotive application filters. It might lead one to wonder though, why such an unequivocal claim would be made with no proof available.

As an aside and point of information the O'R website has a different published efficiency spec for the XP line than what has been mentioned. 'For those interested', an O'R search with Wix filter application followed by the suffix XP will show their ISO test information.

Lastly, had no intention of commenting in this thread, but similar to the hearsay posted in the XP thread, felt it important to separate fact from hearsay.
 
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Hi,
I work at FRAM as the tech director.

Can you give the efficiency ratings of the Ultra starting with the lowest micron size tested? Please also explain how the multi pass efficiency test compares to real world driving. My theory is engines aren't adding many hard particles during real driving and even a 50% efficiency filter in the lab will clean 100% of the oil to the micron limit of the media, given the oil is circulating many many times per minute.
Looking at the pictures of opened TG and EG here, the fiber end caps and wide uneven pleats aren't impressive, why not just make the Ultra? I just bought some Ultras for less than $6. From the people here discussing them, looks like a nice filter. Why would I buy a TG for $5?
 
I would be very comfortable using the TG or the regular Wix (Napa Gold) for those FCI's, the Wix XP would be a lousy buy though IMO.

I would probably opt for the Fram simply because of the higher efficiency and the fact I have used a lot of them and they have always worked very well for me. My start up picky vehicle has not liked the Wix.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes

Can you give the efficiency ratings of the Ultra starting with the lowest micron size tested? Please also explain how the multi pass efficiency test compares to real world driving. My theory is engines aren't adding many hard particles during real driving and even a 50% efficiency filter in the lab will clean 100% of the oil to the micron limit of the media, given the oil is circulating many many times per minute.


Here's some info on oil filter multi-pass testing and efficiency testing in general. You can Google search and find dozens of articles about it.

http://funwithcaroilfilters.blogspot.com/2010/02/oil-filter-tests.html

Muti-pass testing is more representative of how filtering occurs in an engine while in use.

It might be true that if dirty oil is passed through a less efficient filter enough times, it would eventually get clean. But IMO it's better to have a higher efficiency filter because it traps the particles much faster and cuts down how many times the particles have a chance to flow through the engine. Less total number of particles let through means less chance of wear or damage.

This chart give a feel for how a low vs. high efficiency filter would do that. A million particles would pass through the engine with a 50% @ 20 micron filter before all of them would be caught, while only 10,000 particles would have went through the engine with a 99% @ 20 micron filter.

OilFilterParticleRemovalExample.jpg
 
So my thinking is OK on this, because in a ten minute run to the store the oil would be in the 0 particles category, starting with 1 million particles at start. Figuring 2 gal/min flow, which may be high I don't know. The higher efficiency is better no doubt in theory, assuming a lot of added particles during driving, for sure it's more important, but don't know about in practice.
The price of the Ultra pretty much akes it easy to pick.
 
I wouldn't worry about the statistics here.

It doesn't take that long to get to 21 passes in your engine's oil system.

The 50% efficiency is fine and so is the 99% efficiency.

The key thing is to stay on top of your auto maintenance.

Neglect kills automotive engines, not inefficient oil filters.
 
You guys are ignoring the fact you don't know the incoming particle rate. Since particle analysis on this site do not show oil without particles the generation rate must be high enough that the filter can't remove them all.
 
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Hi,
I work at FRAM as the tech director. WIX anything simply does not even come close to the filtering efficiency of even the least expensive FRAM filter. The best WIX can do is mid 80% efficiency @20 microns.


Originally Posted By: sayjac
Until and unless I see an authoritative link posted here showing the topic'd Wix/(Napa Gold) filter at the efficiency just mentioned, I'll take the betas published on Wix website showing the typical Wix/(Napa Gold) ~95%@20um to be the efficiency. Purposely not repeating the mentioned vague efficiency because afaik that has never been a quoted efficiency for Wix filters. In other words until proven otherwise, ~95@20um it is, and anything else is unproven hearsay.


I agree with sayjac. As far as I know, "mid 80% efficiency @ 20 microns" is NOT correct for the regular Wix/NAPA Gold oil filter. According to the Wix website, the efficiency rating for the Wix filter that fits my car (#51334) is 95% at 20 microns and 50% at 6 microns (which can be derived from the beta ratio that is currently posted on the Wix website, Beta Ratio: 2/20=6/20). So, I would definitely use either the Wix/NAPA Gold or FRAM TG with confidence.
 
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Hi,
I work at FRAM as the tech director. WIX anything simply does not even come close to the filtering efficiency of even the least expensive FRAM filter. The best WIX can do is mid 80% efficiency @20 microns. The WIX XP is far worse at near 50% (this info from BITOG members who have contacted WIX).
FRAM is the largest OE filter supplier in the world making filters for Ford, GM, Honda, Subaru, Porshe and many others. Filer efficiency is from 94.7% for EG to 99+% @ 20 microns for TG and Ultra. That said, at 4k OCI's, any decent brand name filter would be fine for you.
If the best Wix can do is mid 80% and Wix claims 95% why doesn't Fram have them in court???
 
Originally Posted By: steveh
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Hi,
I work at FRAM as the tech director. WIX anything simply does not even come close to the filtering efficiency of even the least expensive FRAM filter. The best WIX can do is mid 80% efficiency @20 microns. The WIX XP is far worse at near 50% (this info from BITOG members who have contacted WIX).
FRAM is the largest OE filter supplier in the world making filters for Ford, GM, Honda, Subaru, Porshe and many others. Filer efficiency is from 94.7% for EG to 99+% @ 20 microns for TG and Ultra. That said, at 4k OCI's, any decent brand name filter would be fine for you.
If the best Wix can do is mid 80% and Wix claims 95% why doesn't Fram have them in court???



Agreed - I'd like to see the credible data from the actual testing whereas Fram can claim Wix "best" effort is only mid-80% at 20um. I want to see the actual video, or see a certified, independent lab report with signed notary testament.
I will note, his (motorking) statement about "mid 80% efficiency" can be interpreted two ways ...
either mid-80% would mean 80.4 to 80.6 %
or mid-80% would mean 84% - 86% (this is more likely what he meant)
Still, 85% is not anywhere close to the Wix claim of 95% beta, and if Fram is going to throw that out there as a statement, I want to see the credible basis to make such an accusation.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: steveh
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Hi,
I work at FRAM as the tech director. WIX anything simply does not even come close to the filtering efficiency of even the least expensive FRAM filter. The best WIX can do is mid 80% efficiency @20 microns. The WIX XP is far worse at near 50% (this info from BITOG members who have contacted WIX).
FRAM is the largest OE filter supplier in the world making filters for Ford, GM, Honda, Subaru, Porshe and many others. Filer efficiency is from 94.7% for EG to 99+% @ 20 microns for TG and Ultra. That said, at 4k OCI's, any decent brand name filter would be fine for you.
If the best Wix can do is mid 80% and Wix claims 95% why doesn't Fram have them in court???



Agreed - I'd like to see the credible data from the actual testing whereas Fram can claim Wix "best" effort is only mid-80% at 20um. I want to see the actual video, or see a certified, independent lab report with signed notary testament.
I will note, his (motorking) statement about "mid 80% efficiency" can be interpreted two ways ...
either mid-80% would mean 80.4 to 80.6 %
or mid-80% would mean 84% - 86% (this is more likely what he meant)
Still, 85% is not anywhere close to the Wix claim of 95% beta, and if Fram is going to throw that out there as a statement, I want to see the credible basis to make such an accusation.


Here's a possibility. Since WIX never says what test standard was used to achieve their efficiency numbers, it could be that it was not ISO 4548-12. Using different test procedures could yield different efficiency numbers.

The "mid 80s @ 20 microns" might be what the WIX filters test out at when using the ISO 4548-12 test standard. If Fram did their own in-house test on competitors filters, they would most likely be using ISO 4548-12.

Has anyone actually found out what test standard WIX is using?
 
All the many threads on efficiency and no one verifies the Wix data is from the same standard test? Good point. Threads out the window. From the talk I assumed it was. Fram Ultra is tops for the money. That stainless steel screen backed synthetic media does it. Verified test used too. Score one free filter for me.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All the many threads on efficiency and no one verifies the Wix data is from the same standard test? Good point. Threads out the window. From the talk I assumed it was. Fram Ultra is tops for the money. That stainless steel screen backed synthetic media does it. Verified test used too. Score one free filter for me.


Actually it is a mute point across all filter thread comparisons because Fram, WIX, Tearolator all "hide" some part of their efficiency. So it is an Apples to Umbrella to Spoon comparison.

Wix hides their test procedure. Do you make the jump that it is ISO-4548-12?
Fram does not describe how it calculates 99% (as the ">" metric is not use in the ISO 4548-12 standard. Do you make the jump that Fram is not padding their 99% with large particles to get the average up? Also Fram only list three models "and similar filters" for that 99%
Purolator only tests one filter.Do you make the jump that it is uniform across filters.


Anyway, Wix or Fram, you will not have high risk of torn media allowing marbles into your engine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top