Fram Endurance Flashlight Test in canister
- Thread starter Glenda W.
- Start date
Called Purolator USA for Bill7 and my neighbor. 1995 Mustang. Also had Purlator email me their sources for those who don’t believe me.
Boss PBL 20195
99%@46 microns
50%@22 microns
Boss PBL 20195
99%@46 microns
50%@22 microns
Patman
Staff member
How can they even call this filter a “Boss”? It’s not even an entry level employee. More like an unpaid intern 
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
if you aren’t after efficiency but rather build quality minus louver issues, the boss is actually a pretty stout filter. but i agree, this should be marketed towards a “racing” filter application depending on flow ratings on the media. thank goodness i have a stock pile of OG ultra/titanium’s and CQ premiums can be bought by the caseHow can they even call this filter a “Boss”? It’s not even an entry level employee. More like an unpaid intern
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 728
Thanks for refreshing the contested pages. In the margin the date is year 2000. The Boss wasn’t out yet. Maybe in Germany where the sheet is from they had a pbl series. How in the world can this overrule a current published figure from Purolator USA?
I think it says May 2000. It looks like phone and email staff in USA don’t know what they are doing. It’s quite an error to have the website state efficiency and test method, and staff tell people otherwise.
Remember we are believing everything the Asian filters say on their websites, even Pentius who gives no test method. People have commented on that lack of test method. I think it was Pentius, there are so many Asian imports in the stores now it’s hard to keep track of them.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
So this is even after moving from the wire backed media - to media more similar to the current Fram XG … (same type of change) … ?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 728
Purolator NA was bought by Mann and Bosch in 2006. It looks like in 2013 Mann owned Purolator NA.
Mann before this time sold a fleece filter, supposedly an upgrade for Mercedes to extend drain intervals. It had a media that looks like the current Boss. This is what you buy in a Mercedes parts dept. I think even today.
The contested spec sheet is from before the time Mann and Bosch bought Purolator from Arvin Meritor.
https://www.counterman.com/mann-hum...ership-of-purolator-joint-venture-from-bosch/
Mann before this time sold a fleece filter, supposedly an upgrade for Mercedes to extend drain intervals. It had a media that looks like the current Boss. This is what you buy in a Mercedes parts dept. I think even today.
The contested spec sheet is from before the time Mann and Bosch bought Purolator from Arvin Meritor.
https://www.counterman.com/mann-hum...ership-of-purolator-joint-venture-from-bosch/
From https://mannhummelcatalogs.com/products/purolator-oil-filter-catalog/prod_01HC0BSQS33T8V6QA9R84YTGZR (note the circled text):
Thank you for always going the extra mile and providing the forum with so much info. It's greatly appreciated. You're a member of the small # of respected subject matter experts on this forum.
Those Boss PBL oil filter efficiency #'s are similar to a $2 core oil filter. This filter forum has really uncovered so many deficiencies in the US made oil filters.
Imagine all those people who never heard of BITOG and are uninformed about these low efficiency #'s.
Also, think about the people buying Fram Ultras thinking they are getting 99% efficiency @ 20 microns when due to the leak defect of unfiltered oil, they might be getting efficiencies in the ball park of 50% @ 20 microns. I believe that the choice of an oil filter is a more important choice than choosing an oil.
Last edited:
Looks like their Tech Line people are referencing the Spec Sheets. Of course some here will claim they are wrong and the company that designs and makes them don't know what they're talking about, lol.
Last edited:
The Spec Sheets over-ride the false footnote. You think the Purolator Tech Line is randomly pulling specs out of the air? The Spec Sheet for the PBL30001 does not match the website footnote - not even close.
They can't be all correct, especially when the same exact filter model shows differently efficiency from different references.
The Purolator Tech Dept and their official Spec Sheets say otherwise. Call Purolator, point out and ask them why there's a descrepency.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The note on the bottom of the page says "Print: 6.11.2023". Unless this is an old image being recycled from this thread where @fantastic posted the same spec sheet (which I would assume isn't the case, given that @Glenda W. noted they had Purolator e-mail them the spec sheet), one would assume that would be the date of the doc.
The date on the left margin appears to be in reference to the template. It looks like it says "Subject to change without notice. VOI NOTE: 06/2000". While we see the date on the bottom varying with the sheets, I suspect we'd see that one on the left stay the same.
EDIT:
Found a couple of the original PDF's:
So the note in the left margin says: "V01 KI/Es 05/2000"
And is the same on all of these documents, meaning, it's just the date of the template, NOT the document, or the data contained therein.
Last edited:
Already mentioned that it's most likely the copyright date of the raw form, not the info in the form. Why would Purolator and M+H not know what they are talking about? It's their filters and they have specific Spec Sheets, so they better know what they're talking about.
But the credibility of the Purolator USA web page claims is supported by the 1-year-old BR test results, but obviously not by the almost 4-year-old Ascend results or the who-knows-how-old measurements on the H+M GMBH Germany spec sheets. It's an unsolved mystery ...
The whole BR "efficiency ranking" is a whole other rabbit hole. One theory on the BR testing is that the Boss ranked up near the top because the other filters tested had leaky leaf springs (shown here all over the place) which deceased their efficiency down toward the less efficient Boss.
The whole Purolator/M+H efficiency info and multiple non-corresponding efficiency sources is a complete mess. Since Purolator has went through so many changes, and are now owned and ran by M+H, I'm going to have to believe their Tech Dept and their Spec Sheets. Ascent's official ISO testing correlated much closer to the Spec Sheets than any other source of an efficiency measurement. The difference there could easily be due to how much dP was introduced on the filter before terminating the ISO test. You could always pay for an official ISO test and see where it tests now.
Last edited:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Brand Ranks not ISO certified?
No way. They used ISO test dust and tried to reflect some aspects of the ISO 4548-12 test procedure - like using the same test viscosity and terminating the test at a set dP level. But they are simply using a particle count and not real time calibrated high cost particle counters up steam and down stream like an official ISO 4548-12 efficiency test, like Ascent used.
Similar threads
