Which Filter is better....Fram Ultra or Wix/Napa

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
What is the efficiency of the Wix XP (Napa Platinum)?

I've read something quite low like 50% at 20 microns but I haven't seen it confirmed.

Fram claims 99% at 20 microns which is really good, that's why I got them lined up for my future oil changes on both my vehicles.


On the Wix website, it says B2 = 20 for filter #51334XP, which is the Wix XP synthetic filter spec'd for my car. B2 = 50%, so the way I interpret this info is that the filter has an efficiency of 50% @ 20 microns. I have also read posts on BITOG which stated that members have contacted Wix and were told that 50% @ 20 microns is the correct efficiency. So, if this information is in fact correct, I would choose to run the NAPA Gold filter instead, which has an efficiency of 95% @ 20 microns ... it is also much cheaper than the XP filter at regular price; however, if you want an extended drain synthetic filter, and you're only interested in either Wix/NAPA or FRAM, then I guess I would choose FRAM Ultra mainly due to its better filtering efficiency and lower cost as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
What is the efficiency of the Wix XP (Napa Platinum)?

I've read something quite low like 50% at 20 microns but I haven't seen it confirmed.

Fram claims 99% at 20 microns which is really good, that's why I got them lined up for my future oil changes on both my vehicles.


On the Wix website, it says B2 = 20 for filter #51334XP, which is the Wix XP synthetic filter spec'd for my car. B2 = 50%, so the way I interpret this info is that the filter has an efficiency of 50% @ 20 microns. I have also read posts on BITOG which stated that members have contacted Wix and were told that 50% @ 20 microns is the correct efficiency. So, if this information is in fact correct, I would choose to run the NAPA Gold filter instead, which has an efficiency of 95% @ 20 microns ... it is also much cheaper than the XP filter at regular price; however, if you want an extended drain synthetic filter, and you're only interested in either Wix/NAPA or FRAM, then I guess I would choose FRAM Ultra mainly due to its better filtering efficiency and lower cost as well.


I think someone posted that the Ultra was also 80% @ 5 microns. The Ultra gets my vote.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
What is the efficiency of the Wix XP (Napa Platinum)?

I've read something quite low like 50% at 20 microns but I haven't seen it confirmed.

Fram claims 99% at 20 microns which is really good, that's why I got them lined up for my future oil changes on both my vehicles.


On the Wix website, it says B2 = 20 for filter #51334XP, which is the Wix XP synthetic filter spec'd for my car. B2 = 50%, so the way I interpret this info is that the filter has an efficiency of 50% @ 20 microns. I have also read posts on BITOG which stated that members have contacted Wix and were told that 50% @ 20 microns is the correct efficiency. So, if this information is in fact correct, I would choose to run the NAPA Gold filter instead, which has an efficiency of 95% @ 20 microns ... it is also much cheaper than the XP filter at regular price; however, if you want an extended drain synthetic filter, and you're only interested in either Wix/NAPA or FRAM, then I guess I would choose FRAM Ultra mainly due to its better filtering efficiency and lower cost as well.


That's what I've read on BITOG, I wish Wix would just publish this on their webpage like other manufacturers.

I've never had any issues with the Napa Gold/Wix filters for 7k-8k OCI's. But for longer I'd want a synthetic media filter and the Fram Ultra has the edge over the Wix XP based on those posted efficiency numbers.
 
everyone seems to be all about efficiency but nobody caresabout flow everone just says it flows good..So far that is all i heard from fram and on here there is a lot of speculation.. Maybe its the best filtering filter ever but if it filters so great and does not flow well or is in bypass a large amount of time that is a big problem. I always say clean oil is best but if it flows real slow or the filter goes into bypass all the time its worse than haveing a slightly dirtier oil running through your engine.. This is what most engine builders seem to think including mysrlf.
 
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
everyone seems to be all about efficiency but nobody caresabout flow everone just says it flows good..So far that is all i heard from fram and on here there is a lot of speculation.. Maybe its the best filtering filter ever but if it filters so great and does not flow well or is in bypass a large amount of time that is a big problem. I always say clean oil is best but if it flows real slow or the filter goes into bypass all the time its worse than haveing a slightly dirtier oil running through your engine.. This is what most engine builders seem to think including mysrlf.



The oil filter is not a large point of restriction in the oiling system. Synthetic media has a good flow rate, so i don't doubt any of these synthetic filters are flowing anything less than the engine needs.
 
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
The jury is still out on the flow of the Fram ultra and the price is just ok not great. Not when you can get filters for less than half that. I am using one now and the construction seems to be very nice. I have yet to get the flow rates of that filter. All they told me is its good.. But so are my jobber filters and i pay under $1.70 for most of them.
I will cut it open when i am done with it. This may be the only fram i would buy and use for two oci's and then send a sample of the oil to blackstone. So far i have about 900 miles on that filter and all is good. I am impressed so far.

Extending the use of the filter reduces the flow through the element I think. For flow, Fram seems to be paying attention to that, from what the Fram man said. They even put a high flow bypass valve in when required by the use. There is no problem with flow in a new filter.
 
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
oh no its not when it flows poorly it just goes into bypass thats it!

Do you seriously think these filters flow so poorly they are going into bypass? This is reminiscent of the old days when everyone used to say that Purolator filters were too restrictive.

Here are two posts discussing that very topic one from Jim Allen who did a substantial amount of testing and found that bypass events happen extremely infrequently--far less than the average person would believe they do. Another from SuperBusa who managed to have an engineer at Purolator provide test results on DP and flow rates (the photo is from Purolator's testing). Note the Ultraguard in the photo is NOT a FRAM, but an AC-Delco filter.

pi_filt_oil_gold_coldoil_thumb.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
oh no its not when it flows poorly it just goes into bypass thats it!


I'm starting to wonder if you're stupid or just trolling anymore.
 
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
That graph is confusing. If I desire cold flow, do I want to be the color blue? Or do I want to be gray?


You would want the yellow line which has the highest flow and lowest differential pressure.

This chart is very old but it's useful for comparing the older AC Delco Ultraguard against all the other non synthetic media filters and seeing how much better the synthetic media ultraguard flows.

If you saw an up to date chart like this all the synthetic filters would probably be on top still.
 
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
That graph is confusing. If I desire cold flow, do I want to be the color blue? Or do I want to be gray?


Blue. You want higher flow rates at lower delta pressures. For example, the now defunct Ultragaurd wins, the yellow line.

That graph is just like Ohm's Law for fluid flow. Lines are pretty straight. Differential pressure is like voltage, and flow rate is like amps. Resistance is the reciprocal of the slope of the line on the graph.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
What is the efficiency of the Wix XP (Napa Platinum)?

I've read something quite low like 50% at 20 microns but I haven't seen it confirmed.

Fram claims 99% at 20 microns which is really good, that's why I got them lined up for my future oil changes on both my vehicles.


On the Wix website, it says B2 = 20 for filter #51334XP, which is the Wix XP synthetic filter spec'd for my car. B2 = 50%, so the way I interpret this info is that the filter has an efficiency of 50% @ 20 microns. I have also read posts on BITOG which stated that members have contacted Wix and were told that 50% @ 20 microns is the correct efficiency. So, if this information is in fact correct, I would choose to run the NAPA Gold filter instead, which has an efficiency of 95% @ 20 microns ... it is also much cheaper than the XP filter at regular price; however, if you want an extended drain synthetic filter, and you're only interested in either Wix/NAPA or FRAM, then I guess I would choose FRAM Ultra mainly due to its better filtering efficiency and lower cost as well.


That's what I've read on BITOG, I wish Wix would just publish this on their webpage like other manufacturers.

I've never had any issues with the Napa Gold/Wix filters for 7k-8k OCI's. But for longer I'd want a synthetic media filter and the Fram Ultra has the edge over the Wix XP based on those posted efficiency numbers.


It is on the Wix website ... I included this in my previous post which has been quoted above (see the information in red).
 
Originally Posted By: robo339
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Baldwin.


+1


thumbsup2.gif
Baldwin or Hastings .... identical filters, except for the paint job
smile.gif


It's not one of the filters that mongo161 indicated an interest in, but I agree with both of you that Baldwin is a great filter choice (and it is sold at a good price too). Whenever I do use up the other filter brands I have, what I am going to do is use/buy only Hastings/Baldwin filters from then on (probably will use Hastings more than Baldwin because I can buy them at a local auto parts store ... Federated Auto Parts). They are solid, high quality filters with good efficiency that get the job done .... for my needs, I don't see any reason to use anything else.
 
Now nitrile is just fine for an adbv. I tried to buy Baldwins some time ago, too hard to get with shipping costs etc. Grainger sells them though. They have a nice sounding name in Baldwin, but otherwise I don't see what's so special. I used to use Hastings but they were not Baldwin then they had a thick depth media. Hastings is just a regular filter with a good marketing name now, old school name. Mainly, no Purolator mystery for me any more, ever.
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
oh no its not when it flows poorly it just goes into bypass thats it!

Do you seriously think these filters flow so poorly they are going into bypass? This is reminiscent of the old days when everyone used to say that Purolator filters were too restrictive.

Here are two posts discussing that very topic one from Jim Allen who did a substantial amount of testing and found that bypass events happen extremely infrequently--far less than the average person would believe they do. Another from SuperBusa who managed to have an engineer at Purolator provide test results on DP and flow rates (the photo is from Purolator's testing). Note the Ultraguard in the photo is NOT a FRAM, but an AC-Delco filter.

pi_filt_oil_gold_coldoil_thumb.jpg

Tough Guard looks Tough to flow!!
 
Thanks for all the responses. IMO....all of these heavy can, premium oil filters, synthetic or not seem to do the job for an extended oci or to use for 2 or more oci's in a clean engine. As far as Flow goes.....my hat is off to the K&N, made in USA filters, for back to back oci's in a non-synthetic media for oil flow and ability to trap particles. IMO...with so many filters on the market for extended oci's....any would do an admirable job for their intended purpose of trapping particles and allowing ample oil flow. I also use a Filter Mag attached to my oil canister during each run of any oil filter....be it synthetic, premium or basic which has also helped.
 
i disagree and besides if the flow is not good it goes into bypass all the time and that sort of makes using a filter with a questionable flow a waste of money.
 
believe what you want.. Forget that chart i saw that when i used a pureone in a 91 dodge van 318v8 the oil gauge took a longer time to go up to normal than the classic that was when the p1 was blue. A lot of people just go with what everyone else tells them.. I know a little bit about engines being in the engine business all my life and i say the p1 was restrictive when i tried them and im not sure about the ultra yet.
 
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
believe what you want.. Forget that chart i saw that when i used a pureone in a 91 dodge van 318v8 the oil gauge took a longer time to go up to normal than the classic that was when the p1 was blue. A lot of people just go with what everyone else tells them.. I know a little bit about engines being in the engine business all my life and i say the p1 was restrictive when i tried them and im not sure about the ultra yet.
I believe the data--what do you believe? What are you using to base your decision on? I trust Jim Allen and his testing methodologies and he proved using instrumentation and data that bypass events are nearly non-existent. While I understand you have "know a little bit about engines being in the engine business all my life" what objective data are you using to conclude these filters are restrictive? FRAM states that for the XG2, the DP is 1.4psi--that is very low and indicates the filter is not restrictive. What do you seek as qualifying proof?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top