Brand new unused virgin L14477 cut open

[filb14]

Originally Posted By: Pajamarama
Originally Posted By: pbm
I won't use Purolator's until the tear issue is resolved for certain.


How will you determine that, pray tell?


Some really makes me laugh. They'll say:
"I will never buy Purolators again".
"I have stopped using Purolators".
"I will never buy Purolators again, until I see for myself they're tear-free".

But they never buy Puro anymore, so how will they know??. If someone else that used Puro tells them it's okay, then they say:
"How do I know that's really Purolator".
"That doesn't look like Puro I've seen before".
"How do I know the real usage? short trips, highway, etc".
"How do I know it's really xxxx miles/xxx months?"
aka "How do I know you're not lying?"

Oh well.

 

[cptbarkey]

great looking filter. chalk that up as one success versus the 30 some odd failures reported by BITOG. at least it has only a 95% failure rate right guys?

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Purolator isn't the only filter manufacturer in the world, so people will buy other brands when they continue to not trust Purolator. It doesn't take much to ruin the reputation of a product when consumers realize there is a quality issue. But hey that's part of business in a free enterprise kind of economy.

 

[Nate1979]

Jeez. People get so much grief for switching away from Puro or ever mentioning that they had tears. People infer they were lying. Unbelievable. I found a tear in a Puro Classic. I ran the recommend oil grade and changed the oil well before the OLM. I do short trips and decided a better made filter, the Fram Ultra better suits my driving habits. I don't need Puro to fix their problem because I have a perfectly fine alternative. I will not switch unless I see issues with what I'm running now.

Some people on this site are clearly anti-Fram and it seems to irk them when anything is said by Fram rep, people who recommend Fram, or at all mention quality issues of Puro.

But hey, all of us who had tears just made it all up, right?

 

[Pajamarama]

Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
great looking filter. chalk that up as one success versus the 30 some odd failures reported by BITOG. at least it has only a 95% failure rate right guys?


This is the kind of random pseudo-science I've come to expect from the Purohaters and their Almighty Spreadsheet. You think that there's only been one success? I guess Mark Twain was right:

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, [censored] lies, and statistics.'"

 

[Nate1979]

Sure are a lot of lazy people on this site blaming others for what they are not willing to do themselves. Make a spreadsheet showing non failed Puro filters during the same time period. No one is stopping you. But continuing to complain about it is very telling.

 

[dlundblad]

Looks very good unused. I wouldn't hesitate running these (or the P1) in the other cars I service after I have seen them be tear free for a while. Its nice to have a wide range of variously priced filters so I can get the best out of my AAP promo codes.

Until then, I'm skeptical.

 

[crazyoildude]

Yup, lots to consider and lots to worry about so stop using them and sleep better.

 

[Sayjac]

Interesting to note in this thread that those attempting to flame or label folks commenting in this thread about the specific anecdote topic'd, never comment(ed) about the specific anecdote and it's appearance. Rather it appears to be about off topic bloviating rhetoric. Tells me all I need to know regarding those comments.

And I'd never lose sleep over an oil filter. And considering I've never had an issue with the PL14610 since first dissection/post in 2010 till the present, and include the latest PL14459 just confirms that fact.

As for a positive puro spreadsheet it would no more scientific than the other, so pointless imo.

Again, real simple don't like puro products use something else. Otherwise, as obvious here others can and will exercise their own judgement.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Spoken like a fanatical Framite.

Originally Posted By: sayjac
off topic bloviating rhetoric. Tells me all I need to know regarding those comments.


I feel these belong together. Lol.


Originally Posted By: sayjac
And I'd never lose sleep over an oil filter.


All off topic joking aside, when did you last buy a Purolator filter? IIRC, the last Purolator you cut open was made well before the tearing issues even started.

Im sure id sleep good at night too if I had a huge stash of pre tearing era P1s.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Spoken like a fanatical Framite.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
off topic bloviating rhetoric. Tells me all I need to know regarding those comments.
I feel these belong together. Lol.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
And I'd never lose sleep over an oil filter.

All off topic joking aside, when did you last buy a Purolator filter? IIRC, the last Purolator you cut open was made well before the tearing issues even started.
Im sure id sleep good at night too if I had a huge stash of pre tearing era P1s....

Perhaps you can point what the specific manufacture time frame of which you speak as it seems to be a moving target depending on the positive Purolator anecdote posted. Then I suggest you go and find my latest Purolator anecdote posted recently since you questioned it. Then you judge whether it's before, during or after. The most important point though my statement is entirely accurate.

As for "your feeling" I suggest you also look up the meaning of the term bloviate. The quoted reference if anything is succinct, to the point.

And as referenced poster made no reference to the on topic anecdote discussion and proclivities are well known, I'd consider it also to be on point. So I wouldn't agree with your opinion.

And your assumption/implication that I have a large stash or whatever era P1's is also incorrect. I happen to have zero P1's in my stash currently. Only Napa Gold cartridges and spin on's and a couple older BD+.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
So I wouldn't agree with your opinion.

And your assumption/implication that I have a large stash or whatever P1's is also incorrect. I happen to have zero P1's in my stash currently. Only Napa Gold cartridges and spin on's and a couple older BD+.

You don't have to agree with my opinion. Its okay.

As for my assumption of your stash, I was wrong. However I do remember you posting one that was made well before the tearing issue even started. I am not going to take the time to dig it up, so hopefully you remember when you posted it.

 

[Sayjac]

As I noted I've posted them 2010 so obviously some would have been older. But the latest was relatively new stock, but I have no idea what time frame the amateur sleuths would put it in as I have no interest in that. And as I've seen recent PL/L14610 and similar applications with more recent manufacturer dates posted recently with no issues, the point still stands 'for me'.

Seems odd to me that you would challenge my information on my latest posted anecdote without specific knowledge of it. Perhaps your incorrect assumption of my filter stash is related.

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: Pajamarama
Originally Posted By: pbm
I won't use Purolator's until the tear issue is resolved for certain.


How will you determine that, pray tell?


When Purolator acknowledges the issue.


I thought Purolator responded to a forum member early on about the tear issue and recommended that he buy the latest production filters.

I remember the letter posted being a personal letter, not a form letter, from Purolator.

I think that was some good advice considering the improved quality of 2014 Purolators cut here on BITOG.

 

[ZeeOSix]

A spreadsheet of oil filters that don't fail would be useless because oil filters aren't designed to fail - so we ideally thought. A spreadsheet showing the opposite does have some meaning.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
....I thought Purolator responded to a forum member early on about the tear issue and recommended that he buy the latest production filters.

I remember the letter posted being a personal letter, not a form letter, from Purolator.

I think that was some good advice considering the improved quality of 2014 Purolators cut here on BITOG.

You are correct and especially considering recent results posted I would agree with your conclusion. However that's not the acknowledgement referred to by anti puro zealots. That acknowledgement however has been discussed in the past and as noted then by the reasonable and reasonably intelligent, will never happen. And when it come from one with no desire to see improvement nor uses Puro filters, thus the appropriate characterization for the response used previously.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
....I thought Purolator responded to a forum member early on about the tear issue and recommended that he buy the latest production filters.

I remember the letter posted being a personal letter, not a form letter, from Purolator.

I think that was some good advice considering the improved quality of 2014 Purolators cut here on BITOG.

You are correct and especially considering recent results posted I would agree with your conclusion. However that's not the acknowledgement referred to by anti puro zealots. That acknowledgement however has been discussed in the past and as noted then by the reasonable and reasonably intelligent, will never happen. And when it come from one with no desire to see improvement nor uses Puro filters, thus the appropriate characterization for the response used previously.


Is it safe to consider people on the other side of the spectrum to be pro puro zealots? Lol. After all, we have several members here who know they are potentially running (or ran.. since apparently their filter are fixed now) a faulty product.

I have mentioned this several times. The thing that makes me skeptical as well as others is their response to folks that actually did have torn media. Nothing.. Sure they sent them that nice fancy letter some time later, but where was their refund? Shouldn't Purolator have sent them their money back? Maybe at least a new filter? Anyone with basic customer service experience would think so at least.

We had a Fram Ultra failure here. Fram acknowledged the failure, but wanted proof of purchase. The OP had lost the receipt so he was out of luck. Yet Fram got plenty of hate for this.. How is this any different?

Read pages 7-8. Link

 

[Sayjac]

^^^^^Much like Purolator products and not using them if you don't like them, I'd suggest if you don't like my characterization then you ignore it.

And this is the second time in this thread you've gone out of your way to highlight/quote a response not directed at you or in response to you. Based on that I would say you seem overly sensitive to my posts. I can only assume you take it personally. Get over it or don't read it.

I'm also well of aware of all the occurrences and need no recap. And as it's off topic to my response to the specific poster I'm not interested.

As for being safe, as I've broken no forum rule and it's my opinion, perfectly safe. And based on the question perhaps you should reexamine your recent comment (posted here) regarding assuming authority.

 

[cptbarkey]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
A spreadsheet of oil filters that don't fail would be useless because oil filters aren't designed to fail - so we ideally thought. A spreadsheet showing the opposite does have some meaning.


absolute hogwash.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
^^^^^Much like Purolator products and not using them if you don't like them, I'd suggest if you don't like my characterization then you ignore it.

And this is the second time in this thread you've gone out of your way to highlight/quote a response not directed at you or in response to you. Based on that I would say you seem overly sensitive to my posts. I can only assume you take it personally. Get over it or don't read it.

I'm also well of aware of all the occurrences and need no recap. And as it's off topic to my response to the specific poster I'm not interested.

As for being safe, as I've broken no forum rule and it's my opinion, perfectly safe. And based on the question perhaps you should reexamine your recent comment (posted here) regarding assuming authority.

Im not overly sensitive whatsoever. Just giving other readers a view of the other side of the spectrum if you will. On the other hand, 9/10 you bring great info to this board.

Where did I say you weren't safe? I don't think you broke an forum roles whatsoever.. nor did I by quoting your posts for a second time. As for the link you referenced, how was that assuming authority? My main reason behind that to show how its not "bad" to revive an old thread. With nearly every forum I frequent, its considered a taboo.. and I have no idea why.