Confusion in Purolator Boss filtration efficiency
- Thread starter Creavey26
- Start date
Don’t mind me. I’m partially retarded.
It's bad wording, see post 21. PGI use better wording on their various other brands that PGI makes.
Last edited:
They could do like Purolator and reference the largest filter model they make. People seem happy about that, lol. Maybe you could try to contact them and ask what filter(s) their ISO 4548-12 efficiency claim statement is based on.
And no company is going to ISO 4548-12 test every filter model with the same media they make unless they have their own expensive test lab. They can test a range of different filter sizes and computer model what the efficiency would be for models of any size if the exact same media is used in them and only the filter size is different.
Bad publicity can decrease sales and reputation. WIX was obviously trying to hide the 50% @ 20u efficiency after they removed that efficiency spec off of the WIX website. Then when people contacted WIX asking what the efficiency was they come back with "it's proprietary". That doesn't fly very long before people realize why it's not advertised anymore. Purolator is doing the same thing with the Boss and Gold 20K ... for the same reason.
It is bad wording, but it's marking people who don't really understand the test trying to explain an efficiency spec. Mostly-ignorant people writing for people who are even more ignorant still.
I'm not sure I agree with making a big deal about variation from SKU to SKU within a product line. The media is the same, the performance is essentially the same for a given media area relative to flow (face velocity). And with modern media, the media is less sensitive than ever to face velocity changes and tends to hold efficiency better than legacy cellulose and blended media.
When PGI makes an efficiency claim, I have no reason to dispute it or worry about how it varies from whatever test specimen they used instead of the SKU I'm running.
Even with the same media, a drastic size difference (ie, total media area) can result in a different ISO efficiency. Saw that with the two smallest PureONE filters back when they were the yellow grippy paint versions. They showed a lower ISO efficiency on the box than the larger filters.
All they have to do is test a small, medium and large sized oil filter of the same model line to capture the size sensitivity to efficiency, and then average the ISO efficiency and claim that efficiency for that filter model line. For instance, the OG Ultra did show its efficiency was insensitive to size, as the average still came in at 99+% @ 20u. This is what Fram use to do, and they referenced the 3 filters the efficiency was based on. Purolator and some others will show just the largest filter they make as the ISO efficiency reference.
The Purolator ONE that they show on Purolator's website doesn't even match the spec sheet for that reference filter.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 1,161
Date on spec sheets when test was done? Why not done in USA? MannGermany oil filters have never had high lab efficiency I don’t think. Lab efficiency uses a higher concentration of particles which means slightly more porous filters will look worse than they do in actual use. Need actual use comparisons.
Here is a light spot pic from whip city’s most recent cut open. Not that great on light spots on this sample area. He was a little surprised. Anyway this is the whole video.
@GW. already mentioned that M+H said the spec sheets are kept up to date. Why won't Purolator now tell anyone what the efficiency is for the Boss and Gold 20K filters, but will for the Purolator ONE. Like said, if it was great they would be happy to tell everyone they could. What filter company that has a medium to high efficiency oil filter hides the efficiency from the potential customers?
The math is easy to read. Have you called them yet and asked why they hide the efficiency that they've published for years until about 2-3 weeks ago?Filtering performance is filtering performance, regardless of how concentrated the particulate is in the fluid. A low efficiency filter will still test as low efficiency filter even if the particulate concentration is less. UOA particle counts correlate with the filter efficiency, so that is real world use data - I've posted those comparison graphs quite a few times in these efficiency discussions. Like said many times, if ISO 4548-12 which as been around for over 25 years and used around the whole world (it's an international test specification) was so disconnected from the filtering performance of oil filters, then why is it still used today.
Looking at media under a microscope doesn't give you what the actual filtering efficiency is ... it just fools people into believing that the less "light spots" there are then it must filter "better". Apparently that model has some flaws.
Last edited:
Yes, the storm of goofy nonsense carries on.@GW. already mentioned that M+H said the spec sheets are kept up to date. Why won't Purolator now tell anyone what the efficiency is for the Boss and Gold 20K filters, but will for the Purolator ONE. Like said, if it was great they would be happy to tell everyone they could. What filter company that has a medium to high efficiency oil filter hides the efficiency from the potential customers?
Filtering performance is filtering performance, regardless of how concentrated the particulate is in the fluid. A low efficiency filter will still test as low efficiency filter even if the particulate concentration is less. UOA particle counts correlate with the filter efficiency, so that is real world use data - I've posted those comparison graphs quite a few times in these efficiency discussions. Like said many times, if ISO 4548-12 which as been around for over 25 years and used around the whole world (it's an international test specification) was so disconnected from the filtering performance of oil filters, then why is it still used today.
Looking at media under a microscope doesn't give you what the actual filtering efficiency is ... it just fools people into believing that the less "light spots" there are then it must filter "better". Apparently that model has some flaws.
What on earth are you prattling about?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 1,161
I decided to not let nonsense take more of my time and continue what should be a discussion but which is not.
Last edited:
Might as well, because Purolator isn't talking about the efficiency of the Boss and Gold 20K anymore either.
Similar threads
