Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
I don't know if there's anything approaching empirical data showing how many Purolator Classics tear per 1000 units due to manufacturing issues, but you can be sure if it's 10 out of 1000 that BITOG and the internet will make it their job to put it closer to a 50% tear rate...which of course is automatically a fail rate and then tell you to only buy Wix because your uncle used them and he's been using and cutting them open for years with no problems.
Have somebody go off on nominal filtration specs versus actual tested results?? BITOG?? Never...probably the same difference with tearing filters.
I am having a hard time dissecting what you wrote, but judging from your last comment, you think the Purolator tearing is a hoax too? Do you still think the moon landing was fake and that Elvis still lives too? Refer to the link of the chart that was posted in this thread.
Are you also suggesting that 10 out of 1000 posted Purolator filters on BITOG/ the web were faulty? Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but if several members post issues with different filter models of the same brand, there is indeed a problem. Remember less than 1% of DIY folks most likely cut open and inspect their filters. That being said, the number of failures seen here was pretty significant.
We have seen some very recent Purolator pics that have been excellent. Some had a production date well before the tearing issue came to be so quite frankly, it was nothing to be proud of. Its what was expected. (several members here wore the blinders and didn't seem to catch that..) Some of the most recent dates have been cut and shared too with stellar results. Maybe these are the "good" filters you are thinking of?
Also judging by your last comment, you don't care if a filter tears? No we don't know if tearing has anything to do with wear.. but why would you knowingly run a faulty product?
No, I don't think it's a hoax ( your word ) but as I stated I think that there's a good possibility that it's blown out of proportion in relation to the same results that would be obtained from some other like oil filters. Especially, if there was more data that didn't necessarily only appear on a limited spreadsheet from an oil enthusiast website.
I have no numbers...but that was my point. This site sometimes seems to emphasize things that may exist in an ongoing manner as a problem when in fact it's the norm...not only among Purolator Classics but other lower line filters. Not to say it can't be a bigger problem, only that as you say, only x percent of people cut their oil filters open and yet there are still very few oil filter failure related engine repairs. What if you took Purolator Classic, Wix, Bosch Premium and whomever else and got roughly the same result between brands after a qty. 5000 sample of each?? Does Fram orange can test the same as Purolator Classic and Pure One for this issue at a qty. 5000 run?? I don't know. Before I start blaming a production run or think Purolator is suddenly going to pot while the other brand names that are made by the same manufacturer that supplies Purolator are somehow above suspicion...it would be nice to see some broader empirical data as a comparison. Unfortunately, you won't get that...but you will get the "told ya so" internet guy when there's one engine failure in 5000 applications...potentially just like everyone else.
