Fram Endurance Flashlight Test in canister

[Alien]

Sorry I wasn’t ignoring you. My source for the media pics is Whip City Wrencher, one of my favorite YouTube channels(highly recommended). I agree we can’t speculate efficiency based on these pics. I prefer ISO 4548-12 efficiency numbers. But I will say after seeing many of these media pics the known high efficiency filters aren’t showing much light or holes compared to the known low efficiency filters.

My source for the Boss defect pics are from c&p’s here on BITOG. A search should bring up the many defects we’ve been seeing in new and used Purolator filters over the years including the Boss.

Thanks for your response. I think I looked at all of the recent C&Ps of the Boss, and the impression I came away with was mostly praise for how well built they are and how their media is impossible to tear. That is why I was interested in the pics you posted which appeared to throw doubt on that conclusion. With Fram and MC filters showing signs of QC problems, I thought that the Boss might be the answer and hence became interested in it as an alternative to the Fram Endurance, Titanium and MC filters that I had been using.

 

[Fair enough]

Nope ... you don't understand that there is an efficiency vs particle size curve that defines the filter's efficiency performance across a large range of particles. When someone claims that the filter is 99% @ 20 microns, then that data point needs to be on the curve. Sure, the 99% @ 20u filter will be at least that good for all particles above 20 microns. A filter can not be 99% @ or >46u and 99% @20u at the same time and be on the same curve - that's physically impossible. Plus, the M+H Spec Sheets for the Boss shows the efficiency at the 50% @ 22u point, so that's another data point on the efficiency vs particle size curve.

Look at these actual ISO 4548-12 efficiency test graphs and you'll see what I'm saying.

A

Post in thread 'Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?'

Jun 4, 2021

I will get a video out with more details, but at the moment I cannot. I hope you all enjoy this summery of your favorite filters! You all have waited long enough and I appreciate you patients!

• Ascent Filtration Testing

• 
• 
• 

Sure ... but what source is true when the info on the website in a footnote conflicts with the parent company's official Spec Sheet?

See the Notes on the bottom of Ascent’s graphs.
I agree with the old spec sheet could be a template dated 2000, thought of that. Where is another date on it? Besides print date. Maybe I missed it. Medias were tested under the standardized test like Acsent used, only more sophisticated for sure. The results are 99+%@25 microns. The phone and email person needs a talking to. They don’t get it. They just read off a paper they are supposed to read off. I asked about the website and they had no answer. Next please.
I think the CEO of Puro USA should know about the discrepancy and fix it. If it is 46 then it should say 46 on the web. Buy accordingly to your decision.

 

[Fair enough]

Thanks for your response. I think I looked at all of the recent C&Ps of the Boss, and the impression I came away with was mostly praise for how well built they are and how their media is impossible to tear. That is why I was interested in the pics you posted which appeared to throw doubt on that conclusion. With Fram and MC filters showing signs of QC problems, I thought that the Boss might be the answer and hence became interested in it as an alternative to the Fram Endurance, Titanium and MC filters that I had been using.

I referenced two whip city Boss videos that don’t show holes.

 

[Glenda W.]

Made another call to Purolator at 1800 with questions on the spec sheet dates that I received. Was told to email questions to a Wix email address ([email protected]). I will update you all when I hear back.

 

[ZeeOSix]

See the Notes on the bottom of Ascent’s graphs.

What about it? No different than the M+H Spec Sheets referencing a specific filter model. Note that Ascent happened to test the same exact Boss model (PBL22500) as the M+H Spec Sheet below.

Also note that the Spec Sheet print date is basically the same time when Ascent did his ISO testing (June 2021) ... hummm.

I agree with the old spec sheet could be a template dated 2000, thought of that. Where is another date on it? Besides print date. Maybe I missed it. Medias were tested under the standardized test like Acsent used, only more sophisticated for sure.

"Only more sophisticated for sure" ... what's that mean? An ISO 4548-12 test is ran in a certified test lab or it isn't. Ascent's test lab was a certified ISO test lab. He did ISO testing for companies in the industry ... it wasn't a "garage test" he invented for BITOG or YouTube.

The results are 99+%@25 microns. The phone and email person needs a talking to. They don’t get it. They just read off a paper they are supposed to read off. I asked about the website and they had no answer. Next please.

And exactly where did they get that data that they put in the footnote on the Purolator website? When you talk to "Purolator" you are actually talking to M+H and all the technical information they have. I knew the website believers would claim M+H "doesn't know what they are talking about", even though they've been in the oil filter industry for decades. Did you ask them if they "know what they are talking about" because the website shows a different claim than their official Spec Sheets?

I think the CEO of Puro USA should know about the discrepancy and fix it. If it is 46 then it should say 46 on the web. Buy accordingly to your decision.

Exactly ... the discrepancy needs to be figured out and fixed where it's erroneous so all sources from "Purolator/M+H" agree, because Purolator is M+H now.

 

[Mechanician]

 

[Fair enough]

What about it? No different than the M+H Spec Sheets referencing a specific filter model. Note that Ascent happened to test the same exact Boss model (PBL22500) as the M+H Spec Sheet below.

Also note that the Spec Sheet print date is basically the same time when Ascent did his ISO testing (June 2021) ... hummm.

View attachment 257833


"Only more sophisticated for sure" ... what's that mean? An ISO 4548-12 test is ran in a certified test lab or it isn't. Ascent's test lab was a certified ISO test lab. He did ISO testing for companies in the industry ... it wasn't a "garage test" he invented for BITOG or YouTube.


And exactly where did they get that data that they put in the footnote on the Purolator website? When you talk to "Purolator" you are actually talking to M+H and all the technical information they have. I knew the website believers would claim M+H "doesn't know what they are talking about", even though they've been in the oil filter industry for decades. Did you ask them if they "know what they are talking about" because the website shows a different claim than their official Spec Sheets?


Exactly ... the discrepancy needs to be figured out and fixed where it's erroneous so all sources from "Purolator/M+H" agree, because Purolator is M+H now.

The email person was unresponsive when I asked why the website was different. Just repeated what she said before and is there anything else. This is not Purolators expert team we contact. They hire operators to answer the phone and respond to emails. They give them a book with the answers to common questions. The reason I said probably more sophisticated is Purolator and other large companies have the funds for more sophisticated equipment. Nothing wrong said.
They aren’t going to make up the test used and the rating and put it on their website. or the spec sheet. Now is 2025 and likely the media has been improved. Also as you know the classic did very well with one model of filter, better than others.
Anyway, burned out. I have a feeling you never get burned out with this.

 

[OVERKILL]

The reason I said probably more sophisticated is Purolator and other large companies have the funds for more sophisticated equipment.

This is why standards exist. Purolator tests per the standard, just like Ascent does. It's the same with API sequences and OE oil approvals, whether XOM runs them in house or Savant or some other lab runs them, it doesn't matter, because they are all using the same standard test protocols. That's why we have standardization, to make results comparable, regardless of their origin.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The email person was unresponsive when I asked why the website was different. Just repeated what she said before and is there anything else. This is not Purolators expert team we contact. They hire operators to answer the phone and respond to emails. They give them a book with the answers to common questions.

Why would Purolator/M+H allow ther Tech Dept to give out non-current and erroneous information? It's their responsibility to have upto date information about their products. Just like any other company. It can't be that hard to have the Tech Dept have current and accurate information. At leat they don't use "it's proprietary" excuse like Wix.

The reason I said probably more sophisticated is Purolator and other large companies have the funds for more sophisticated equipment. Nothing wrong said.

It's an un-logical assumption. ISO 4548 requires certain test equipment with defined requirements, and requires the test equipment to be calibrated. It's not equipment you buy at Home Depot for a garage test.

They aren’t going to make up the test used and the rating and put it on their website. or the spec sheet. Now is 2025 and likely the media has been improved.

That's just an assumption. How do you know it's actually not the website footnote that's wrong. Look at post 1025 again. M+H Spec Sheet printed at the same time frame as Ascent did an official ISO test on the same model Boss (PBL22500).

Also as you know the classic did very well with one model of filter, better than others.
Anyway, burned out. I have a feeling you never get burned out with this.

Yes, some Classic and ONEs have shown better efficiency on the Spec Sheet than others. Maybe some Boss models are better than others, but of the few Boss Spec Sheets I've seen they all have the same efficiency spec.

 

[Alien]

I have sent a letter to the president of Mann+Hummel asking which efficiency numbers are the correct ones for the Boss. I will let you know what the response is.

 

[Glenda W.]

Made another call to Purolator at 1800 with questions on the spec sheet dates that I received. Was told to email questions to a Wix email address ([email protected]). I will update you all when I hear back.

I’ve escalated after being pawned off to this email with no response. Waiting for updated spec sheets. Updates to follow. My hope is between all of us we can put Purolator efficiencies to rest on BITOG.

 

[Patman]

I’ve escalated after being pawned off to this email with no response. Waiting for updated spec sheets. Updates to follow. My hope is between all of us we can put Purolator efficiencies to rest on BITOG.

I believe the name Purolator was derived from the term Pure Oil Later, after they came up with the first oil filter (or at least one of the first). Nowadays we can say that it still means pure oil later, as in much later, after you switch to a different brand of oil filter other than them

 

[Bill7]

I believe the name Purolator was derived from the term Pure Oil Later, after they came up with the first oil filter (or at least one of the first). Nowadays we can say that it still means pure oil later, as in much later, after you switch to a different brand of oil filter other than them

The whole US oil filter market is in chaos, caused by takeovers by cost cutting bean counting companies looking to maximize profits.

I really don't know if I trust any publicized efficiency. Who knows how old their efficiency ISO test is, and whether the test was performed
before or after the cheapening of the filter.

Perhaps the more important criteria in choosing a filter is whether the filter might damage your engine.
It's important to avoid filters with closed louvers, leaking unfiltered oil, easily torn media, etc.

So that is where BITOG's C&P's and flashlight tests are so important, as they can show which filters are well constructed without any defects.

 

[Glenda W.]

The whole US oil filter market is in chaos, caused by takeovers by cost cutting bean counting companies looking to maximize profits.

I really don't know if I trust any publicized efficiency. Who knows how old their efficiency ISO test is, and whether the test was performed
before or after the cheapening of the filter.

Perhaps the more important criteria in choosing a filter is whether the filter might damage your engine.
It's important to avoid filters with closed louvers, leaking unfiltered oil, easily torn media, etc.

So that is where BITOG's C&P's and flashlight tests are so important, as they can show which filters are well constructed without any defects.

Agree 100%

 

[Fair enough]

The whole US oil filter market is in chaos, caused by takeovers by cost cutting bean counting companies looking to maximize profits.

I really don't know if I trust any publicized efficiency. Who knows how old their efficiency ISO test is, and whether the test was performed
before or after the cheapening of the filter.

Perhaps the more important criteria in choosing a filter is whether the filter might damage your engine.
It's important to avoid filters with closed louvers, leaking unfiltered oil, easily torn media, etc.

So that is where BITOG's C&P's and flashlight tests are so important, as they can show which filters are well constructed without any defects.

I think Purolator has made improvements of bad defects, and Baldwin is unchanged. It’s mainly this First Brands that is causing the chaos. What other are left that can keep the doors open? I think that’s it. Donaldson, don’t know if they are too messed up yet.

 

[Bill7]

I think Purolator has made improvements of bad defects, and Baldwin is unchanged. It’s mainly this First Brands that is causing the chaos. What other are left that can keep the doors open? I think that’s it. Donaldson, don’t know if they are too messed up yet.

It's human nature to use wishful thinking about a product they like.
The problem is really with Champ Labs, which makes the Fram, Super Tech, and many other US brand filters.

I used to only use the Purolator pure one PL14610 oil filters for years on my Honda's, until I heard about the tearing media scandal at Purolator. That was an early forshadowing of things to come with US oil filter companies cheapening their products to make more profit.

 

[Glenda W.]

Yep First Brands and M+H seem to be the problems. Which is anything made by Fram, Champ, Purolator, and Wix.

 

[Jim Rogers]

I've recently taken off (and cut) the last Purolators I had installed (both red can and PureOne blue cans), and they looked absolutely beautiful. Straight, even, and strong pleats, perfect gluing, and wide-open louvers.

Passed the flashlight test with flying colors.

I believe the reason Purolator is on the BITOG blacklist now is because of a well-documented problem with torn media and possibly closed louvers. But given I've not seen any torn-media Purolator C&P in a while, might that indicate that that problem may have been resolved? Or have I missed some recent torn Purolators?

If torn media issue has indeed been resolved, based on what I've seen, both Purolator red and blue cans seem like great filters, and very reasonably priced at Menards. And, when purchased at Menard's, louvers can be inspected before purchase, taking that possible issue off the table.

Based on this, is it possible that Purolator filters could be moved back to the BITOG whitelist?

 

[Glenda W.]

I've recently taken off (and cut) the last Purolators I had installed (both red can and PureOne blue cans), and they looked absolutely beautiful. Straight, even, and strong pleats, perfect gluing, and wide-open louvers.

Passed the flashlight test with flying colors.

I believe the reason Purolator is on the BITOG blacklist now is because of a well-documented problem with torn media and possibly closed louvers. But given I've not seen any torn-media Purolator C&P in a while, might that indicate that that problem may have been resolved? Or have I missed some recent torn Purolators?

If torn media issue has indeed been resolved, based on what I've seen, both Purolator red and blue cans seem like great filters, and very reasonably priced at Menards. And, when purchased at Menard's, louvers can be inspected before purchase, taking that possible issue off the table.

Based on this, is it possible that Purolator filters could be moved back to the BITOG whitelist?

No worries on Boss torn media. If the louvers are open run it. The Pure One seems hit or miss on wavy pleats which could tear. This is the only recent defect I could find.

F

Thread 'Purolator PureOne PL24651'

May 31, 2024

Cut open my Purolator filter after 7K mile run with Redline 5W-30. What I found was disturbing.
The bottom medal cap had zero glue for it to stick to the filter and the top cap had about 1/4 of it applied to the filter. So how much oil in 7K miles was not filtered properly
Photos attached
Thanks guys

• ford250
• Replies: 40
• Forum: Engine Oil Filters

• 
• 
• 

 

[Glenda W.]

After 5 calls to Purolator I’m at a loss. I was told every filter has it own data sheet which is updated if there’s a production change. The service reps generate the spec sheets on demand so updates are seamless. I was told each filter could have a better or worse efficiency then what is marketed. The Boss marketing materials are based on PBL 30001 being 99%@25 microns so I requested that spec sheet and two more that @Fair enough might be interested in. As you can see below nothing is matching up to the marketing claims. I give up…