Originally Posted By: sayjac
That thar's one purty injun you got thar boy!
That thar's one purty injun you got thar boy!
Cut Open Comparison Purolator PureOne vs Synthetic
- Thread starter Umibozu
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The pureone looks like it held up better to me
^^2nd
Appearances are a deceptive when the media is wet with oil, and even moreso due to the different nature of synthetic media versus conventional. The synthetic media is much thicker and "fluffier" and formed over a wire mesh, so its not going to look as "crisply" pleated as the PureOne media will, even if you just took two new filters and dunked them in brown oil. The same is true for any synthetic filter like a Fram Ultra or Royal Purple- they may LOOK less crisply pleated, but that is not a measure of their condition. That thick filter media will always have a soft, mushy appearance and that's a good thing.
Its been documented here that PureOnes, while excellent filters, start showing signs of distress like wavy pleats and folded pleats when pushed further than 6000 miles or so. They really are more optimized for conventially short OCIs, and that should be the deciding factor when choosing... are you going to extend your OCI, or not? If not, then a PureOne is a great pick. But if you're extending, spend the $$ for a synthetic.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The pureone looks like it held up better to me
^^2nd
Appearances are a deceptive when the media is wet with oil, and even moreso due to the different nature of synthetic media versus conventional. The synthetic media is much thicker and "fluffier" and formed over a wire mesh, so its not going to look as "crisply" pleated as the PureOne media will, even if you just took two new filters and dunked them in brown oil. The same is true for any synthetic filter like a Fram Ultra or Royal Purple- they may LOOK less crisply pleated, but that is not a measure of their condition. That thick filter media will always have a soft, mushy appearance and that's a good thing.
Its been documented here that PureOnes, while excellent filters, start showing signs of distress like wavy pleats and folded pleats when pushed further than 6000 miles or so. They really are more optimized for conventially short OCIs, and that should be the deciding factor when choosing... are you going to extend your OCI, or not? If not, then a PureOne is a great pick. But if you're extending, spend the $$ for a synthetic.
Originally Posted By: walk23
Wasn't aware that it's effiency rating was higher than the synthetic version.
It's necessarily so. The Synthetic filter is designed to be used for longer intervals, so it uses a slightly lower efficiency media. All else being equal (like filter size, etc), you generally have to reduce efficiency to increase capacity. This is why Japanese OEM filters typically have lower efficiencies than filters for other applications: they're designed to used for longer intervals.
Wasn't aware that it's effiency rating was higher than the synthetic version.
It's necessarily so. The Synthetic filter is designed to be used for longer intervals, so it uses a slightly lower efficiency media. All else being equal (like filter size, etc), you generally have to reduce efficiency to increase capacity. This is why Japanese OEM filters typically have lower efficiencies than filters for other applications: they're designed to used for longer intervals.
I like PureOne for the money / performance / quality.
I might try one, however I do NOT like the PUREONE, Perhaps this might have better flow then the PUREONE.
However Im very happy with FRAM ULTRA,
Perhaps we could have a side by side comparison of Fram ultra and Purolator Synthetic and NAPA Platinum all for the same car.
Now that would be very cool to see.
Perhaps even a K&N and a M1 in there also or a B D+
but Fram Ultra and Purolator Synthetic side by side would be nice to see
However Im very happy with FRAM ULTRA,
Perhaps we could have a side by side comparison of Fram ultra and Purolator Synthetic and NAPA Platinum all for the same car.
Now that would be very cool to see.
Perhaps even a K&N and a M1 in there also or a B D+
but Fram Ultra and Purolator Synthetic side by side would be nice to see
Originally Posted By: David1
I might try one, however I do NOT like the PUREONE, Perhaps this might have better flow then the PUREONE.
However Im very happy with FRAM ULTRA, ...
Guess you missed my post where I said Jay (ie, "Motorking") gave me the "Flow vs Delta-P" specs on a Fram Ultra and it's curve was just a hair better than the non-synthetic (PL) PureOnes in terms of flow performance. Guess this "the PureOne is too restrictive" non-sense will never mis-informed internet rumor believer's heads.
The PLS Purolator should flow about the same as the other two. The only time an engine can sense that an oil filter is "restrictive to flow" is when the oil pump is in pressure relief mode ... which really doesn't happen very often unless you're at redline or pretty high revs with cold oil.
I might try one, however I do NOT like the PUREONE, Perhaps this might have better flow then the PUREONE.
However Im very happy with FRAM ULTRA, ...
Guess you missed my post where I said Jay (ie, "Motorking") gave me the "Flow vs Delta-P" specs on a Fram Ultra and it's curve was just a hair better than the non-synthetic (PL) PureOnes in terms of flow performance. Guess this "the PureOne is too restrictive" non-sense will never mis-informed internet rumor believer's heads.
The PLS Purolator should flow about the same as the other two. The only time an engine can sense that an oil filter is "restrictive to flow" is when the oil pump is in pressure relief mode ... which really doesn't happen very often unless you're at redline or pretty high revs with cold oil.
Good dissection of the two oil filters, but the PL20195 is the wrong oil filter for a 2007 Ford Focus.
As long as clearance is adequate they are interchangable. The L10195 is identical to the L10241 that is spec'd except the filter element is a bit longer.
Originally Posted By: Wampahoofus
As long as clearance is adequate they are interchangable. The L10195 is identical to the L10241 that is spec'd except the filter element is a bit longer.
If that is the case, why doesn't Purolator simply use the PL20195 in place of the PL10241? I've never been able to get anyone to give a good explanation?
Even Ford uses the FL-910S on the 2007 Focus, but people insist on using the FL-400S. I guess they know something that the people that designed and built the engine don't know.
As long as clearance is adequate they are interchangable. The L10195 is identical to the L10241 that is spec'd except the filter element is a bit longer.
If that is the case, why doesn't Purolator simply use the PL20195 in place of the PL10241? I've never been able to get anyone to give a good explanation?
Even Ford uses the FL-910S on the 2007 Focus, but people insist on using the FL-400S. I guess they know something that the people that designed and built the engine don't know.
Originally Posted By: stchman
Originally Posted By: Wampahoofus
As long as clearance is adequate they are interchangable. The L10195 is identical to the L10241 that is spec'd except the filter element is a bit longer.
If that is the case, why doesn't Purolator simply use the PL20195 in place of the PL10241? I've never been able to get anyone to give a good explanation?......
Quite simple really, if Purolator recommends the 'non spec' filter size, then should something happen, it's on Purolator not the vehicle manufacturer. I'll grant the chance is remote, but there nonetheless.
Originally Posted By: Wampahoofus
As long as clearance is adequate they are interchangable. The L10195 is identical to the L10241 that is spec'd except the filter element is a bit longer.
If that is the case, why doesn't Purolator simply use the PL20195 in place of the PL10241? I've never been able to get anyone to give a good explanation?......
Quite simple really, if Purolator recommends the 'non spec' filter size, then should something happen, it's on Purolator not the vehicle manufacturer. I'll grant the chance is remote, but there nonetheless.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: stchman
Originally Posted By: Wampahoofus
As long as clearance is adequate they are interchangable. The L10195 is identical to the L10241 that is spec'd except the filter element is a bit longer.
If that is the case, why doesn't Purolator simply use the PL20195 in place of the PL10241? I've never been able to get anyone to give a good explanation?......
Quite simple really, if Purolator recommends the 'non spec' filter size, then should something happen, it's on Purolator not the vehicle manufacturer. I'll grant the chance is remote, but there nonetheless.
I just went to Purolator's website and cannot see any mention of using the PL20195.
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/reso...s&year=2007
Originally Posted By: stchman
Originally Posted By: Wampahoofus
As long as clearance is adequate they are interchangable. The L10195 is identical to the L10241 that is spec'd except the filter element is a bit longer.
If that is the case, why doesn't Purolator simply use the PL20195 in place of the PL10241? I've never been able to get anyone to give a good explanation?......
Quite simple really, if Purolator recommends the 'non spec' filter size, then should something happen, it's on Purolator not the vehicle manufacturer. I'll grant the chance is remote, but there nonetheless.
I just went to Purolator's website and cannot see any mention of using the PL20195.
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/reso...s&year=2007
Because the 10241 is the spec size. The 10195 is apparently an oversize that also fits, something that members frequently look for. Think you mean 10195 mentioned previously not 20195.
I went back and looked at the OP's filter and it is 20195, so cancel what I said about the 10195. Was going by the number the quoted poster used, incorrectly. So, the 20195 would be the oversize to the 10241 if the poster quoted is correct about it's fitment dimensions.
Originally Posted By: stchman
Originally Posted By: Wampahoofus
As long as clearance is adequate they are interchangable. The L10195 is identical to the L10241 that is spec'd except the filter element is a bit longer.
If that is the case, why doesn't Purolator simply use the PL20195 in place of the PL10241? I've never been able to get anyone to give a good explanation?
Probably because if the longer one was anywhere close to hitting or rubbing on something, or getting hit by road debris, Purolator doesn't want to take the risk of the can getting damaged, leaking and then smoking a motor.
Originally Posted By: Wampahoofus
As long as clearance is adequate they are interchangable. The L10195 is identical to the L10241 that is spec'd except the filter element is a bit longer.
If that is the case, why doesn't Purolator simply use the PL20195 in place of the PL10241? I've never been able to get anyone to give a good explanation?
Probably because if the longer one was anywhere close to hitting or rubbing on something, or getting hit by road debris, Purolator doesn't want to take the risk of the can getting damaged, leaking and then smoking a motor.
- Status
