4 tears on one Purolator oil filter

[Hyde244]

^ Where I am drawing my logic is from Inferential Statistics and Probability Theory.

It is a fundamental principle in statistics that the larger a sample, the less statistical error there is in determining a trend. That is, the more sure you can be that your results are indeed correct.

So our findings could be very correct. Or they could be very wrong. There is simply too much error involved with having such a small sample size. The only way to improve the accuracy of this determination this is to broaden the sample size and see if a trend exists.

Thus far, we have had a hand full of oil filters posted. Compared to the 425 million oil filters used each year in the U.S., it is very difficult to prove or disprove overall oil filter brand quality.

 

[bullwinkle]

Looks like we all need to go hang out at the quickie lubes of the world, & go collect every Puro Classic we can find, & cut a few thousand of them open!! Who's with me (makes John Belushi in Animal House sounds/face)? AHHHHHH!

 

[bullwinkle]

BTW-until engines start dropping from this (they won't)-Purolator could care less!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Hyde244
^ Where I am drawing my logic is from Inferential Statistics and Probability Theory.

It is a fundamental principle in statistics that the larger a sample, the less statistical error there is in determining a trend. That is, the more sure you can be that your results are indeed correct.

So our findings could be very correct. Or they could be very wrong. There is simply too much error involved with having such a small sample size. The only way to improve the accuracy of this determination this is to broaden the sample size and see if a trend exists.

Thus far, we have had a hand full of oil filters posted. Compared to the 425 million oil filters used each year in the U.S., it is very difficult to prove or disprove overall oil filter brand quality.


There's no reason the sampling here on BITOG should be un-proportionately skewed one way or the other. The odds of BITOG members only getting the bad filters and the rest of the world getting perfect filters is huge ... way more than the error involved with what you consider a "small sample group". My bet is if you could cut open thousands of Purolator filters you would see a large rate of failures just like we sense here on BITOG.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
BTW-until engines start dropping from this (they won't)-Purolator could care less!


Engines could essentially go without oil filters and still last long enough if the oil was changed regularly to where most people wouldn't know the difference. So yeah, the perceived sensitivity of this issue is very small, if at all, by the "general public". That's in Purolator's favor. BITOG members is the only avenue to Purolator being alerted that something is going on that they should look into.

 

[Hyde244]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There's no reason the sampling here on BITOG should be un-proportionately skewed one way or the other.
Yes there is, which is very high error created by a small sample size, as I said before.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The odds of BITOG members only getting the bad filters and the rest of the world getting perfect filters is huge ... way more than the error involved with what you consider a "small sample group".
These are actually one in the same. What you refer to as odds is indeed error - the likelihood you are of being correct or incorrect.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
My bet is if you could cut open thousands of Purolator filters you would see a large rate of failures just like we sense here on BITOG.
That would be the only way to validate if Purolator Classics are more prone to tearing.

You're welcome to disagree, but I am simply spelling out what standard statistics has to say about taking a <20 sample of a population well over 1 million.

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: Hyde244
^ Where I am drawing my logic is from Inferential Statistics and Probability Theory.

Thus far, we have had a hand full of oil filters posted. Compared to the 425 million oil filters used each year in the U.S., it is very difficult to prove or disprove overall oil filter brand quality.


I understand but I still think you're not seeing the big picture, or rather you are so hung up on the big picture that you are missing what is right in front of you.

Yes, the number of filters cut and posted here on BITOG is virtually nothing compared to the number of Puro filters sold and in use. But in the last couple months, I'd estimate the number of filters cut by BITOG'ers that had a failure of some sort is at least 30%, or more. That is just WOW! So in our tiny sample size, the failure rate is simply shocking.

You are defending Puro to the point of being irrational about it. They have a problem, multiple pictures prove it, they need to fix it.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
BTW-until engines start dropping from this (they won't)-Purolator could care less!


Engines could essentially go without oil filters and still last long enough if the oil was changed regularly to where most people wouldn't know the difference. So yeah, the perceived sensitivity of this issue is very small, if at all, by the "general public". That's in Purolator's favor. BITOG members is the only avenue to Purolator being alerted that something is going on that they should look into.


This is an interesting point. Have we had any used oil analysis done where a tear was seen? I dropped the oil sample off for mine today so should have the results back in a week. I have been trending the used oil analysis for this truck so I'm interested to see if the tear will cause any change.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
BTW-until engines start dropping from this (they won't)-Purolator could care less!


Engines could essentially go without oil filters and still last long enough if the oil was changed regularly to where most people wouldn't know the difference. So yeah, the perceived sensitivity of this issue is very small, if at all, by the "general public". That's in Purolator's favor. BITOG members is the only avenue to Purolator being alerted that something is going on that they should look into.


This is an interesting point. Have we had any used oil analysis done where a tear was seen? I dropped the oil sample off for mine today so should have the results back in a week. I have been trending the used oil analysis for this truck so I'm interested to see if the tear will cause any change.


It think the only way anyone could correlate that is if they found that the filter they used did have tears in the media, and they also had sent in the oil for a used oil analysis. Don't know if anyone has done that, but it would definitely be interesting to see the used oil analysis results knowing the filter used with that oil was letting unfiltered oil past the media.

 

[Hyde244]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I understand but I still think you're not seeing the big picture, or rather you are so hung up on the big picture that you are missing what is right in front of you.

Yes, the number of filters cut and posted here on BITOG is virtually nothing compared to the number of Puro filters sold and in use. But in the last couple months, I'd estimate the number of filters cut by BITOG'ers that had a failure of some sort is at least 30%, or more. That is just WOW! So in our tiny sample size, the failure rate is simply shocking.

You are defending Puro to the point of being irrational about it.
I promise it isn't irrationality, but a simple application of stats.

Think of it this way on why larger samples are better:

1. The first reason to understand why a large sample size is beneficial is simple. Larger samples more closely approximate the population. Because the primary goal of inferential statistics is to generalize from a sample to a population, it is less of an inference if the sample size is large.

2. A second reason is kind of the opposite. Small samples are bad. Why? If we pick a small sample, we run a greater risk of the small sample being unusual just by chance. Choosing 5 people to represent the entire U.S., even if they are chosen completely at random, will often result if a sample that is very unrepresentative of the population. Imagine how easy it would be to, just by chance, select 5 Republicans and no Democrats for instance.

 

[qwerty1234]

Purolator does not seem very concerned about these failures. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[tig1]

This is a good reason for canister filters. I check mine in the Fusion every OC. No problems.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
The size of this filter is extremely undersized for the application. Which engine do you have? Minimum on a Silverado is the 4.3L V6 and this filter is smaller than the L14610 which is used in the Civic 1.8L.

I wouldn't put full blame on Purolator for this, GM spec'd an undersized filter.


It's the 5.3L V8.


I have the same engine in an '08 TrailBlazer and use the PL12222 and have opened every other filter but never found a pleat tear.

 

[bvance554]

Originally Posted By: Hyde244
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I understand but I still think you're not seeing the big picture, or rather you are so hung up on the big picture that you are missing what is right in front of you.

Yes, the number of filters cut and posted here on BITOG is virtually nothing compared to the number of Puro filters sold and in use. But in the last couple months, I'd estimate the number of filters cut by BITOG'ers that had a failure of some sort is at least 30%, or more. That is just WOW! So in our tiny sample size, the failure rate is simply shocking.

You are defending Puro to the point of being irrational about it.
I promise it isn't irrationality, but a simple application of stats.

Think of it this way on why larger samples are better:

1. The first reason to understand why a large sample size is beneficial is simple. Larger samples more closely approximate the population. Because the primary goal of inferential statistics is to generalize from a sample to a population, it is less of an inference if the sample size is large.

2. A second reason is kind of the opposite. Small samples are bad. Why? If we pick a small sample, we run a greater risk of the small sample being unusual just by chance. Choosing 5 people to represent the entire U.S., even if they are chosen completely at random, will often result if a sample that is very unrepresentative of the population. Imagine how easy it would be to, just by chance, select 5 Republicans and no Democrats for instance.


I understand your statistical theory, but you are hung up on the big picture and missing what is in front of you as suggested by KC. We understand that a larger sample size reduces error. No one is looking to take a poll of every Purolator oil filter out there. Actually your way of thinking is a bit twisted. Very few people cut open a filter and even fewer come here to post pictures of it. But what is being discussed here is an obvious large rate of failure. We have a small random sample here. Most likely, if you were to cut open EVERY Purolator on a car right now you would find an even higher rate of failure. What you are suggesting is that only people on BITOG get bum filters.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bvance554
What you are suggesting is that only people on BITOG get bum filters.


That's what I've been saying too. I want to know the statistical odds of only BITOG members who cut open Purolator oil filters are the only people on earth who get a media tear in their filters.

 

[Merkava_4]

When's Purolator gonna come out with a wire backed synthetic media filter ?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
When's Purolator gonna come out with a wire backed synthetic media filter ?


About 6~9 months ago?

http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx

 

[CHARLIEBRONSON21]

The tears on the cheap "quick lube" filters that are made by purolator go largely unnoticed. I'm not too sure what happened with all these filters we've seen here. Maybe the entire batch is bad, maybe there's a gremlin swapping out our filters with defective filters, who knows. There's probably a larger number out there, since not too many people cut the filters. I think I'm just gonna stick with the good old Fram filters. Haven't had any problems to turn me off of them. Had some start up noise with a TG. Wrote it off as a fluke. A couple changes later I used another one. No noise. Inexpensive, good quality. I'll stick with them as long as they perform.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CHARLIEBRONSON21
... maybe there's a gremlin swapping out our filters with defective filters, who knows. There's probably a larger number out there, since not too many people cut the filters.


That's it ... Gremlins with X-ray vision who can see media tears through the steel can are swapping those filters out in the middle of the night onto BITOG members cars who also have a filter cutter in the garage. There was really only 12 bad filters out of 1,000,000 made, and those Gremlins just wanted to mess with BITOG dudes.

 

[FutureDoc]

Hyde, this is not a general statistical test. We are not polling for someone's favorite band. This is completely different than Purolator pulling a few filters off the line, testing them, and then inferring about the rest of the population.

If anything, this is more akin to bio-stats where only a few cases are reported in a very small community (say a hospital) where you have highly informed individuals diagnosing specific failures/symptoms. You do not need a nation-wide survey to ID an epidemic if there are several reported cases above what would be expected for a given population. Thus, if there is norm of 1 in 100 cases for something and then it spikes to 1 in 10, there is something seriously wrong. It is the same for tracking food-poisoning at very specific restaurants. You do not have to survey every patron (or every restaurant patron of the city) but if you get a high number of hits/failures from those who actually report the issue (and not down a bottle of pepto and grunt it out), then you have useful data. Purolator has a significant flaw and problem here.