Wix efficiency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
8,576
Location
Ohio
I think Wix filters are constructed well, but no better than a Purolator. I'm not sure about the bypass WIX bypass. They are kind of pricy. I know this has been touched on before but can it be true that WIX filters have such low efficiency? This manufacturer link suggest that the WIX is only 50% efficient at 20 microns and only 93% efficient at 31 microns. This is way worse than even Fram extraguard or the notoriously low effieciency rating ogf the Motorcraft of 80% efficiency at 20 microns.

WIX

Why would anyone pay as much for a WIX as a PI and get lower efficiency than just about any filter known? Also it states flow is 7-9 GPM which seems to be about par for the P!, so increased flow doesn't seem to be provided.
 
Go with the Puro PureOne....its the best for effeciency in its price range....and with a SYN...7,500 to 9,000 OCIs depending on your driving habits.

I purchase my PureOnes at Bi-Mart (here in Central Oregon) at $5.79 when they have a $1 off sale ($4.79)....and Purolator has a mail-in rebate (late spring, early summer) of $2 off per PureOne....making the final cost just $2.79.....yes $2.79 because we have no sales tax in Oregon.
_______________________________________________
2003 Ford Focus SE 2.3L / 82K
Valvoline MaxLife Syn 5w30 / OCI 7,000 +/-
Purolator PureOne PA 10241
 
Yeah I know, I got several of those P1 on sale at Kmart and sent in a rebate too. They were cheaper than wholesale price. I'm just trying to understand why would anyone would run WIX with the low efficiency rating they have?

I have been using Purolators on and off with my cars for as long as I've been driving and changing oil. I just had an inclination they were good, before there was internet and filter studies.
 
I think oil filter efficiency ratings are very inexact, and in real-world use may not mean much at all. Several large-scale tests I've seen show little difference in results no matter what filter is used. For example, the CA state fleet tests compared a cheap CarQuest filter with a Fram Extended guard for prolonged OCI's up to and over 10,000 miles, and their conclusion was there was no difference between the filters using regular dino oil. The original Bob on here had no problems running without an oil filter. Look at all the UOAs on here with all sorts of filters and all sorts of oil. They are all over the place in terms of results.

However, design and construction seems to play a much larger role. Poor ADBVs can cause start up lags in pressure and knocking. Poorly supported media seems to be the cause of the recent Ecore failure we've been discussing. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can point to any hard evidence that differences in bypass valves really means anything.

Also, you'll note that Wix beta ratios are all over the place. Maybe they are just being more honest in their measurements than some others that claim things rather vague like 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns, when it is very hard to believe that they can maintain that exact same ratio across so many filters.

In short, I think you should look for overall design and construction first, silicone ADBV second, filtration claims third, and then maybe the design of the bypass, though I'm not sure it really means anything. Of course, price figures in there somewhere too.
 
I agree with you to a large extent except for the filter efficiency. I think it has importance over the long haul of an engine. I don't doubt that Purolators and other filters can attain the efficiency they claim. The test is an industry standard.

What I'm not sure of is if efficiency much higher than ~95% makes a whole lot of difference. So to that extent I agree with you efficiency may not matter so much. So I wouldn't have a problem running a oil filter with the efficiency of a Fram or Ecore at a better price, if the construction was right which it isn't. But when a filter only claims 50% efficiency at 20 microns and not that impressive flow, I wouldn't use it when there are better alternatives.
 
I think anyone that has used Wix for a long time knows they work well. And anyone that has cut one apart knows they're one of the best constructed filters around.

I had always wondered how much micron ratings were abused in marketing... I was digging around online and found this from July 2003. Old, I know, but probably still just as applicable today with all the ##% efficient claims:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1266886.html?page=2

No More Micron Ratings
Wix is also educating the filter industry one classroom at a time. Currently, the focus of its customer-training program is to abolish the improper use of micron ratings for fluid filter classification. According to Wix, micron ratings are typically calculated by using a procedure called "mean flow pore." But Wix contends that because there is no industry-standard SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) test procedure for a mean flow pore, micron ratings are meaningless and have become only a marketing tool to "distinguish" one filter from another.
 
By the way, if I'm reading this beta ratio correctly for the filter in question (Wix 51040 = Beta Ratio: 2/20=15/31) then it's 50% efficient at 15 microns and 95% efficient at 31 microns. That's not bad. How are you getting your percentages?

The Wix filter I just bought for one of my cars has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=6/19. That's 50% efficient at 6 microns and 95% efficient at 19 microns.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Why would anyone pay as much for a WIX as a PI and get lower efficiency than just about any filter known? Also it states flow is 7-9 GPM which seems to be about par for the P!, so increased flow doesn't seem to be provided.


That's a max flow rate which is a limitation of the oil filter flow capability. It's not a representation of how well the oil flows through the media. In other words, it may take more or less pressure from an oil pump to push oil through XYZ filter versus a Wix. Max flow rate is unrelated.
 
I've abandoned the need for the finest of filters in terms of ratings. I look now at the nominal rating as an indication. The holding capacity would be a good spec to have. That will give you some sense of the life span.



WIX construction is top shelf. Not too much to criticize there.
 
Originally Posted By: Soobs
By the way, if I'm reading this beta ratio correctly for the filter in question (Wix 51040 = Beta Ratio: 2/20=15/31) then it's 50% efficient at 15 microns and 95% efficient at 31 microns. That's not bad. How are you getting your percentages?

The Wix filter I just bought for one of my cars has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=6/19. That's 50% efficient at 6 microns and 95% efficient at 19 microns.



I read the beta ratio 2/20=15/31 to mean a beta of 2 at 20 microns and beta 15 at 31 microns. Beta 2 is 50% efficiency. This is also supported by the claim that it is a 21 micron nominal filter. Beta 2 at 15 microns would be more in line with average filters.If instead it was beta 2 at 6 microns that would be a very efficient filter, more efficient than even P1 and it would be a 6 micron nominal filter.
 
Originally Posted By: Soobs
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Why would anyone pay as much for a WIX as a PI and get lower efficiency than just about any filter known? Also it states flow is 7-9 GPM which seems to be about par for the P!, so increased flow doesn't seem to be provided.


That's a max flow rate which is a limitation of the oil filter flow capability. It's not a representation of how well the oil flows through the media. In other words, it may take more or less pressure from an oil pump to push oil through XYZ filter versus a Wix. Max flow rate is unrelated.


Maxflow rate doesn't tell you the restriction or psid, but I'd think there is some correlation between restriction, efficiency and flow rate.

Anyway the purpose of an oil filter is to, well filter. You seem to be arguing the filtering ability isn't important only construction. I think they are both necessary and important. Purolators are just as well constructed plus they have high efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I've abandoned the need for the finest of filters in terms of ratings. I look now at the nominal rating as an indication. The holding capacity would be a good spec to have. That will give you some sense of the life span.



WIX construction is top shelf. Not too much to criticize there.


Fair points and we have this info from Purolator for the P1. They said it is a 11 micron nominal filter and has 13 grams of holding capacity iirc. We also got info that it would not go into bypass mode at ~8 gpm of hot oil flow. So that is an indication that it is a fee flowing filter even though it has high efficiency.

Wix claimed the filter in the link is 21 micron nominal filter, and that's the thing I have against them.
 
Here's an old River Rat post explaining the Wix beta ratios that I found particularly easy to understand:

"2/20 = 21/37

1/2 of particles 21 microns in diameter are not caught in the filter and show up downstream.

and only 1/20 of the particles 37 microns in diameter are not caught by the filter (because they're bigger and catch in the media easier).

In this case the manufacturer could choose to rate the filter as 95% efficient at 37 microns--because 1/20 of the particles getting through is the same as 95% of them being caught."
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Maxflow rate doesn't tell you the restriction or psid, but I'd think there is some correlation between restriction, efficiency and flow rate.

Anyway the purpose of an oil filter is to, well filter. You seem to be arguing the filtering ability isn't important only construction. I think they are both necessary and important. Purolators are just as well constructed plus they have high efficiency.


I haven't stated anything that would suggest filtering ability isn't important. On the contrary it's very important. I'm just making some clarifications. Also, I'm not trying to suggest a Wix is better or worse than a PureOne. I use both products and buy whichever is on sale. I'm running a PL14610 on my Honda right now.

Max flow rate is determined by a lot more than just the ease of flow and it wouldn't be fair to say a Wix and P1 have the same [/i] flow capabilitybased off of that data. In any event, they both flow fine.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
20 microns and beta 15 at 31 microns. Beta 2 is 50% efficiency. This is also supported by the claim that it is a 21 micron nominal filter. Beta 2 at 15 microns would be more in line with average filters.If instead it was beta 2 at 6 microns that would be a very efficient filter, more efficient than even P1 and it would be a 6 micron nominal filter.


Just so we're all on the same page, (and I'm not sure how you got 93% at 31 microns) this is how I learned to calculate a beta ratio. You have to subtracet 1 from 2 & 20 and then divide that number by 2 & 20 to derive the correct percentage.

(Wix 51040) Beta Ratio 2/20=15/31:

2 / 20 = beta ratios of 50% and 95%. (1 divided 2 = 50% & 19 divide 20 = 95%) You then correspond these percentages with the micron size on the other side. Therefore it's 50% efficient at 15 microns and 95% efficient at 31 microns.

My latest Wix filter the (51356) has a beta ratio of 2/20=6/19. I like how Wix has specific data for each filter instead of blanketing every box with a efficiency rating derived from just one of their filter models. Again, this is not a crack on Purolator (they're fine filters) but I really doubt they all have identical multipass efficiencies.

More here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1266886.html?page=2

If the numbers after the B are subscripted, it means they represent the micron sizes for the respective beta ratios on the other side of the equation. If the numbers after the B are not subscripted, it means they represent the beta ratios for the respective micron sizes on the other side of the equation. To calculate the percentage of efficiency, subtract 1 from the beta ratio, then divide the result by the beta ratio. Example: 75-1=74; 74/75=98.67 percent. So the higher the beta ratio, the more efficient the filter is.
 
We are calculating beta ratio the same way just you are using 2/20 as the beta ratio at 15/31 microns, respectively. I am assuming 2/20 means beta 2 at 20 microns. You are assuming 2/20=15/31 mean beta 2 @ 15 microns and beta 20 @ 31 microns. That would make sense but WIX claims this filter is a 21 micron nominal filter, suggesting it is beta 2 at ~20 microns.

If they were calculating it your way then the filter would be a 15 micron nominal filter. Also it wouldn't make sense that the filter is only 95% efficient at 31 microns yet 50% efficient at 15 microns although it is possible.

To find which way is correct would require contacting WIX. But evenb using your higher number 50% @ 15 microns and 95% @ 31 microns is still very low efficiency, lower than any other filter.

Purolator said most all of their filters have the same efficiency, and it makes sense since they are using the same type of media. A P1 is a 11 micron nominal filter. Which is much better than a WIX 21 micron nominal filtr which is the worst I've seen.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
We are calculating beta ratio the same way just you are using 2/20 as the beta ratio at 15/31 microns, respectively. I am assuming 2/20 means beta 2 at 20 microns. You are assuming 2/20=15/31 mean beta 2 @ 15 microns and beta 20 @ 31 microns. That would make sense but WIX claims this filter is a 21 micron nominal filter, suggesting it is beta 2 at ~20 microns.

If they were calculating it your way then the filter would be a 15 micron nominal filter. Also it wouldn't make sense that the filter is only 95% efficient at 31 microns yet 50% efficient at 15 microns although it is possible.

To find which way is correct would require contacting WIX. But evenb using your higher number 50% @ 15 microns and 95% @ 31 microns is still very low efficiency, lower than any other filter.

Purolator said most all of their filters have the same efficiency, and it makes sense since they are using the same type of media. A P1 is a 11 micron nominal filter. Which is much better than a WIX 21 micron nominal filtr which is the worst I've seen.


Gotcha, but I am using the beta ratio calculation that is from Wix's guidance. There is information and a couple slideshow screenshots from Wix on deciphering beta ratios on the link I posted earlier.

And again, I'm not suggesting that one filter is better than another; however, there's a little bit more digging to be done. I don't know if they are both doing MPE to the same SAE tests, and even if they are, there are no standards in SAE tests to derive mean pore flow. So a company could advertise 99% efficiency at 20 microns with a particular filter if they find a way to run the test to give those results. Also, I managed to get 440,000 miles on my last vehicle without ever using a PureOne. In my opinion, a lot of the flashy claims are just marketing tools.

Now all that being said, I'm not trying to defame any filters here. I like PureOnes... and Wix... and a few select other brands. Just buy what makes you feel good. They'll all do well. :)
 
I would assume they are testing under the same multi-pass test standard SAE J1858 or ISO 4548-12 or whatever. That is what Purolator and the others are using. So I'd assume WIX is using the industry standard test like the others. Why would WIX use a some other test or non-standard test and not look as good?

The way I see it is the WIX efficincy even calculated different from the way I was is still only 95% efficient at 31 microns and for your filter model 95% efficient at 19 which is about like an ecore and lower than a Purolator Classic.

The WIX use a paper media and don't look to be very efficient, so I don't see the point in paying more for a WIX when a less expensive Purolator Classic appears to filter better and be as well made.

If the WIX had a better efficiency rating and/or a lower price I'd use them.
 
The problem is there is no "industry standard" on testing or reporting. We are comparing apples to oranges to peaches to pears. I personally think there is no way to compare filtration based on what the manufacturers are giving us. Just look at the UOAs reported here. They are all over the place with all different oils and filters. Things like River Rat's home tests and our opinions here on BITOG are interesting, but we really need some scientific tests conducted by independent labs not being paid by one or another filter company.
 
Exactly, AuthorEditor. And mechanicx, unfortunately, I can't find what SAE standards Wix uses besides J806; however, they're the only filter company that gives you real data for each filter. Also, the way I am calculating the beta ratios is the correct way and Wix uses a glass-enhanced paper media.

The latest universal testing is SAE J1858 (ISO 4548-12). That's what Purolator is using, but their efficiency is only based on the L30001 & PL30001 filter. I'd bet if they published data for each filter this whole 97.5%(Classic) and 99%(PureOne) marketing campaign wouldn't even hold anything close to accurate. That's all this is... marketing.

If you folks are really interested in this stuff here is some reading: http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/89-5R3.pdf

Straight from the Filters Manufacturers Council: "The micron rating does not properly or fully describe either the efficiency or contaminant-holding capacity of the filter media." In other words.... don't fall for marketing hype. We can argue about this micron and efficiency business all day, but in the end all we're doing is debating about different company's marketing campaigns, not filtration quality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top