Did my oil filter tear?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy

Im glad youve decided to drop it.
I think what should get a guy booted is insistantly continuely stating facts that are un supported by varifiable info.
So go on and play now.
Maybe learn to practice some better control in the future.


No ... I said YOU need to drop it because you just don't get it and I'm very sure you never, ever will. But I really don't care, so why waste the time and energy. And BTW, please keep up on what I'm saying, and don't twist it up as you like to do.

That's the funniest thing I've read in months! Yeah, boot guys who have FACTS and ways to back that up, and know what they are talking about! But let trolls and squirrels run rapid. Perfect!
thumbsup2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
 
Send me $5,000 and I'll get any filter you want tested. Easy as that.

IMO, and for many here I'm sure ... what Jay posted is proof enough. Not for you ... not surprise there, but for most here I would say.

Can you please contact your boss at WIX and have them tell you what test spec their beta ratios are based on. Thanks!
grin.gif


If you want to stop wasting your time, stop debating this issue with your erroneous viewpoint.
 
Op, if you decide to cut open your filter, I think there's a thread about it on hear. Ofcourse its not complicated by any means. Really you just wanna cut right above the width of the base plate so as to not accidentally nick the media or anything. That way you know for sure what you see was actual condition of the filter.
 
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Take it from a (rare) BITOG voice of reason-NO ONE has yet suffered engine damage from a "Tearolator"-I have cut several that I ran, I was not impressed with the seam pleat spacing, nor the flimsy media, but I had no tears, personally. I'm more disgusted with Mann & Hummel's LACK of response to the issue,.....

A rational response. Also backed up by the UOA's, limited though they may be, of Puro tear anecdotes.

Also don't know which application the OP is using, which might make a difference. That said, never had a tear in PL14610 used in my Hondas, including two posted last year.

And agree, M&H not doing Puro US any favors with their handling of the tears all the way around.

But as noted here, only real way to answer topic question is to cut it open. As to whether to do it now, or after a reasonable oci/fci, your call. Now that it's on, I'd likely do the latter.
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Take it from a (rare) BITOG voice of reason-NO ONE has yet suffered engine damage from a "Tearolator"-I have cut several that I ran, I was not impressed with the seam pleat spacing, nor the flimsy media, but I had no tears, personally. I'm more disgusted with Mann & Hummel's LACK of response to the issue,.....

A rational response. Also backed up by the UOA's, limited though they may be, of Puro tear anecdotes.

Also don't know which application the OP is using, which might make a difference. That said, never had a tear in PL14610 used in my Hondas, including two posted last year.

And agree, M&H not doing Puro US any favors with their handling of the tears all the way around.

But as noted here, only real way to answer topic question is to cut it open. As to whether to do it now, or after a reasonable oci/fci, your call. Now that it's on, I'd likely do the latter.


Great points. My only question is why after knowing what we know of the Purolator issues bother using them at all? There are plenty of other better choices at the moment.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Take it from a (rare) BITOG voice of reason-NO ONE has yet suffered engine damage from a "Tearolator"-I have cut several that I ran, I was not impressed with the seam pleat spacing, nor the flimsy media, but I had no tears, personally. I'm more disgusted with Mann & Hummel's LACK of response to the issue,.....

A rational response. Also backed up by the UOA's, limited though they may be, of Puro tear anecdotes.

Also don't know which application the OP is using, which might make a difference. That said, never had a tear in PL14610 used in my Hondas, including two posted last year.

And agree, M&H not doing Puro US any favors with their handling of the tears all the way around.

But as noted here, only real way to answer topic question is to cut it open. As to whether to do it now, or after a reasonable oci/fci, your call. Now that it's on, I'd likely do the latter.


Great points. My only question is why after knowing what we know of the Purolator issues bother using them at all? There are plenty of other better choices at the moment.

And that is a great point. Been said before, don't like Puro filters be it from personal experience, or reading about tear anecdotes, don't use them. Use something else, lots of choices. Simple. If you use them after having a negative experience and/or knowing the tear issue and complain, kind of a 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me' moment imo.

And why, in addition to finding local Napa Gold 40% off semi annual sale I've moved on to Napa Gold, for the moment.

That said, being a US based filter manufacturing company and one I've had solid results with in the past (including 3 P1's posted here last year), I do hope that Purolator US can get the QC/QA issues under control. And that means M&H putting some resources into making it happen.
 
Originally Posted By: sir1900
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
Last OCI ( about 1100 miles ago) i used QSUD and a purolator classic

I hadnt been reading BITOG RECENTLY SO i did not know the issue with purolator filters tearing.

It seems to be consensus that they tear in the first 1000 miles.

Would I be able to tell if this occured?

How bad is this if it happens?

Should I dump the oil right now and replace the filter?


You won't know if the filter is torn without cutting it open.

It probably won't do much harm, but the efficiency won't be as advertised that's for sure.

I would leave the oil and filter in for the full OCI.

Not all Purolators are prone to tearing. What is the vehicle in which the PC is being used?
So now we know, somehow, it's the FIRST 1000 miles? ROF.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I can't believe your glittering generalizations will change many minds.


Yeah, I guess it's not big deal. With over 60+ reported tears, and it's now been about 1-1/2 years since it all started. And guys are still reporting a few here and there ... at least the very few guys here who still use those Tearolators. Yeah, guess there's nothing to be concerned about.
wink.gif


BTW ... nobody who bailed out on Purolator has gone back yet. No confidence that anything has been done to fix the problem. Maybe in a few more years.
whistle.gif

Here and there. Another scientific term. Any engine damage reported?
"Nobody"?? What proof so you have, or claim to have of that? A "little voice" in your skull?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
I say scuttle that PuroTear oil filter like the chick you met online and turned out to be fat; leave her at the Applebees and slip out the back..... Get a real filter.

Sure, be a "gentleman" about it.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy

I was just pointing out that the 2 threads we have clashed on be for this one were threads where you and or others decided to hijack. Like my excellent wix post where y'all instantly began trolling.


People comment, hijack, troll, etc in almost every thread. Best get use to it, because that's just the way a chat board is. Maybe a chat board isn't your cup of tea ... or at least one like this that can get you banned pretty fast if you get too nuts.

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy

No I understand very clearly what greater than means. I posted a little refresher for ya on the other thread but guess it fell on deaf ears or blind eyes in this case.


Reality is that you really don't understand what greater than means when applied to the efficiency of an oil filter. It's been explained 10 different ways and it still doesn't click for you, so why even go there anymore.

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy

I have no way of knowing if the claims motorking has made(I have looked em up) are true. He does have a strong sales history per his own words. All I asked for was verification.
Its not mean or disrespectful or any of that, Its smart. You represent it and tout it and would like people to buy then back it with proof.


Those two links I posted in the other thread of what Motorking said about the testing and the > and @ language pretty much says it all, and is what I've been trying to make you and others understand. If Motorking says the same thing and you don't believe it then you never will. Fram tests efficiency per ISO 4548-12, and all that has already been hashed over. The 4548-12 test calls out a specific ISO certified test dust to use, so they can't play games with particle sizes and quantity of particles in the test dust. If testing per ISO 4548-12 isn't proof enough then the only thing that would be better is pay a lot of money to an independent lab that tests per ISO 4548-12 and verify it yourself.

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy

I believe wix more than FRAM cuz they give definate specs without the greater than scam.
But honestly I don't put much faith in any profit driven organization.


WIX is less transparent than Fram is. Makes you wonder. Comment on > usage already given.

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy

I fully admit that I think FRAM with exception to fu filters are junk.
Right now in my stash I have 4 old (2009) p1 filters 5 beck&arnley which these particular ones are made by k&n. I also have 5 Mann cartridges and 5 generic champion cartridges. Not a single wix. Historically I have leaned toward motor craft. So no bias here.


Well if you like the Ultra then how about calming down with the anti-brand stuff. Talk about filters in a factual way regardless of brand, not from some biased fueled fanboy agenda.
grin.gif

I just LOVE people who tell me what I don't understand.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I can't believe your glittering generalizations will change many minds.


Yeah, I guess it's not big deal. With over 60+ reported tears, and it's now been about 1-1/2 years since it all started. And guys are still reporting a few here and there ... at least the very few guys here who still use those Tearolators. Yeah, guess there's nothing to be concerned about.
wink.gif


BTW ... nobody who bailed out on Purolator has gone back yet. No confidence that anything has been done to fix the problem. Maybe in a few more years.
whistle.gif

Here and there. Another scientific term. Any engine damage reported?
"Nobody"?? What proof so you have, or claim to have of that? A "little voice" in your skull?
Well-nobody has reported a blown (oil related) engine from a torn Puro yet-as opposed to the GM Ecores in the news recently. I wouldn't freak out about it, just cut the filter open when you're done with it, or have another BITOGer cut it, & see if it tore or not. IMHO cold weather+thick dino oil+short trips seems to be the magic formula, along with metal seam crimps, for a torn filter. Weird that almost no cheaper Puro filters (Quaker State, ProLine, etc.) with the glued seam have had these faults. BTW, I run Wix, NAPA Golds, Ultras, a few Bosch Premiums/P1s & Quaker States on the vehicles I maintain-even in 0F weather with straight 30 HDEO I haven't seen a Puro tear yet!
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Here and there. Another scientific term. Any engine damage reported?
"Nobody"?? What proof so you have, or claim to have of that? A "little voice" in your skull?


You could probably run NO oil filter and not cause catastrophic engine failure - but most likely accelerated wear.

So why not just do that and save some money that would otherwise be spent on oil filters? Point is, knowing what an oil filter is supposed to do, why run one that might have a media failure. If someone really doesn't care what the oil filter is doing, then I say "go for it".
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I just LOVE people who tell me what I don't understand.


Who was quoted there? Are you and Bigdaddyeasy related ... same guy maybe?
 
Wow this thread is like a roll call for people I have on ignore!
laugh.gif


Give it up Zee life is too short.
happy2.gif
The obvious is not lost on the masses, the remaining few aren't worth the trouble.
 
^^^ Definitely! As I've said many times, I could care less if someone uses filters that tear or even destroy their engine for some reason. At least if there is info for someone to decide, then that's about all anyone can go by.
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Hey Bigdaddyeasy. I feel like Zee0six is really just placing the information out there in regard to the Purolator filter issues. He IS just trying to give the OP a heads up about the potential issue with these filters however "small" a chance there may be of media issues.

I feel quite confident that he would state if brand "whoever" was really good he would have no problem saying this was what he thought. I have read where Zee0six said that the Napa gold was a very good filter aka in his top 2. Yes he likes the Fram Ultra.. But it is due to his belief in the quality of the product.

Jay is a good guy. He's very busy with his job as well. I also bet he really doesn't feel like anything he would say would likely change anyone's mind. I don't blame him for that. The link that Zee0six posted on here about particulate size was a good read and worth the time.

I do agree that the verbiage would BE much better if Fram stated it as @20 microns or greater. So has to include 20.0 in that expression of filtration capability.

I think we ALL would very likely agree with the following.. 1) IF we had to run a Napa Gold on our vehicles we ALL would do so with no problems:) 2) IF Napa had a good sale on them.. We would be happy to purchase them. 3) Fram Ultra IS a very good option if so desired. 4) Same could be said for Motorcraft, Baldwin, Hastings and Mann too if available. 5) Plus at the end if the day the WAY we all take care of our cars and trucks ... Our vehicles will have zero problems due to lack of attention or maintainance. Whether we run a Napa Gold, Fram Ultra ( which I use
smile.gif
Wix, Motorcraft etc etc...

6) My own thought.. I enjoy and learn some good stuff from many people on here and I like both of you guys. Very smart, helpful and guys are that are passionate. Which I like and respect.


Very well-stated.
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Take it from a (rare) BITOG voice of reason-NO ONE has yet suffered engine damage from a "Tearolator"-I have cut several that I ran, I was not impressed with the seam pleat spacing, nor the flimsy media, but I had no tears, personally. I'm more disgusted with Mann & Hummel's LACK of response to the issue,.....

A rational response. Also backed up by the UOA's, limited though they may be, of Puro tear anecdotes.

Also don't know which application the OP is using, which might make a difference. That said, never had a tear in PL14610 used in my Hondas, including two posted last year.

And agree, M&H not doing Puro US any favors with their handling of the tears all the way around.

But as noted here, only real way to answer topic question is to cut it open. As to whether to do it now, or after a reasonable oci/fci, your call. Now that it's on, I'd likely do the latter.


Great points. My only question is why after knowing what we know of the Purolator issues bother using them at all? There are plenty of other better choices at the moment.

And that is a great point. Been said before, don't like Puro filters be it from personal experience, or reading about tear anecdotes, don't use them. Use something else, lots of choices. Simple. If you use them after having a negative experience and/or knowing the tear issue and complain, kind of a 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me' moment imo.

And why, in addition to finding local Napa Gold 40% off semi annual sale I've moved on to Napa Gold, for the moment.

That said, being a US based filter manufacturing company and one I've had solid results with in the past (including 3 P1's posted here last year), I do hope that Purolator US can get the QC/QA issues under control. And that means M&H putting some resources into making it happen.


If they can change it up, prove that the problem is history and people start posting positively about them I have no problem going back. OTOH knowing what I know about them I'll continue to use another brand. I'm not losing any sleep over it, and I'm not going to fight with anyone over how good or bad they may or may not be. Life is too short to worry about an oil filter, especially when there are plenty of other options.
 
Looks like the Purolator shills are out in full force. Change the filter. Don't take our word for it, even Purolator says you should change their garbage filter:
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/news/Pages/OilFiltersWhyFailureIsNotAnOption.aspx
Quote:
The consequence of a clogged oil filter is typically the routing of unfiltered oil to critical engine components or, in extreme cases, total oil starvation. In either case, “the result is damage to engine bearings and other precision engine parts, greatly shortening engine life,” he said.

Is that "scientific" enough for the paid shills? I mean if it came from the keyboard of the Purolator paymasters and their fear-driven "YOUR ENGINE IS GOING TO BLOW UP UNLESS YOU USE OUR SUPER DUPER FILTERS" agenda I guess it's fine but when it comes from real people with no agenda other than wanting real filtration having paid money for it, any attempt to warn people away is not fine; nor are user-generated reports about the issue. Nobody takes you guys and your ridiculous trolling as anything but trolling. You guys can't be serious.

Quote:
Just recently cut it open after it sat outside for a year and a half. It looked great.

Yeah so was the first one I ran. Then the second one was torn rofl. I don't get what this was supposed to imply when there's a whole spreadsheet of people who ran into this issue? That the issue doesn't exist? That you might get lucky? Cool. That would make the op feel better. After reading this he now knows that it might be torn.
 
Considering that no one on this site would be willing to give you an engine warranty in the case the filter causes a failure I suggest to change it. You will be the one who has to pay the bill so are you willing to risk it? That a failure hasn't happened on this site wouldn't be enough reason to make me run a filter with a known history of failure when there are so many other options.

But sure, people have no problem to give advice sitting behind their keyboard with no reproductions to their advice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Passport1
Oil Filters, Tale of Woe
2
Replies
21
Views
944
GI_GRIFF
S
Replacement for Purolator Boss Oil Filters
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
D1dad
N
Wix oil filter design philosophy
2
Replies
21
Views
621
Glenda W.
Elkins45
In praise of the cartridge oil filter
2
Replies
24
Views
759
ZeeOSix
zmelli
WIX Oil Filter Fail!
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
ZeeOSix
Back
Top Bottom