I've found multiple PDF's that all say the same thing in the margin (see my edits to the post above) that show it's just the date of the document template. So it has nothing to do with how current the data being shown is.
I'm just trying to figure out which filter to install on my Expedition. Without any further information, it looks to me that the most likely explanation is that the Boss was updated with more efficient media 1-3 years ago, but that the M+H headquarters is still passing out outdated spec sheets (maybe due to CYA if some of filters with old media are still in distribution, perhaps abroad). Also, from my experience it would not surprise me at all if headquarters did not have the most up-to-date technical information and understanding about products produced by a foreign subsidiary, especially when that subsidiary is an acquisition. It is probably as simple as that.
The Boss came out in 2016 ... so it's basically always been a M+H filter. Spec Sheets for Purolators are from M+H.
Call their Tech Line and see what they say. If they have indeed done that, then they need to update the Spec Sheets (it can't be that hard to do) because when all this stuff is compared, the Spec Sheets should hold a lot of weight for technical information ... more than just a footnote about a single filter model on Purolator's website. And they are distributing those Spec Sheets to the public, so I'd think they would want them to be accurate for the current filters being sold. As far as BR's ranking, for me not valid enough to be the standard.
I emailed and they said 46 microns. I tried to ask about the website numbers. Doesn’t register, only give out what someone put in front of them in a book. What else do I need, they ask.
The Purolator oil filters are all M+H owned and controlled now. So I'd have to say the parent company should ultimately be the ones who know what's going on with their products. Who else besides the parent company would know better information?
What else would the part number be? They aren't going to use the same part number for multiple oil filters.
You think the Boss in the USA is different than the Boss anywhere else? Do they make the Boss in many different factories around the globe using all kinds of different filter media?
Cue up the Journey song ... "Don't Stop Believin' ".
I had to laugh. You obviously have never worked for a large international company. Yep, they have communications issues both within the company and with their customers. That much we have established.
I said "they should" ... not "they do".
You missed my earlier point: the two claims actually do agree. I filter that can block 99% of 25up size particles probably can also block 99% of size 46up particles. No conflict. One claim is simply more conservative than the other, for reason we can only guess.
Unless it was hacked, from Purolator. Seems obvious ...
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.
Sure ... but what source is true when the info on the website in a footnote conflicts with the parent company's official Spec Sheet?
And Purolator is owned and controlled by M+H. Why would there be such a big conflict in efficiency claim. Purolator only exists by name these days ... it's actually M+H. If M+H is letting people go rouge with tech information then they shouldn't be in the business of making and selling oil filters. Answer the page Columbo, lol.
Read those two sentences back to yourself. You are contradicting yourself ...
You have an odd idea about how large corporations work. It's not a top-down dictatorship. And how is H+M GMBH Germany's Spec Sheet any more "official" than Purolator USA's "official" web page?
I'm not conflicting myself, more like you really don't understand the filter efficiency vs particle size performance curve that's a result of an official ISO 4548-12 efficiency test. Go read my previous post again as I added info. If a filter is ISO efficiency at 50% @ 22u and also at 99% at 46u then BOTH those data points need to be on the curve, like shown in the official ISO test data graphs provided by Ascent in post linked in my previous post. Might be good for you to read that whole giant thread about Ascent conducting the ISO testing.
Because they are the parent company of Purolator, and have control of what "Purolator" does. If they can't operate their company correctly isn't anyone's fault but their own. There is zero proof that the single footnote efficiency claim on Purolator's website is true or not, but based official Spec Sheets from the parent company and Ascents ISO testing, I'm going to have to go with Ascent and M+H until someone can officially prove they are wrong. A simple footnote on a website isn't going to do it for me when there's other conflicting information with more weight. But if it does it for others who are Purolator fans then they should go buy those filters ... it's their car.
Exactly the reverse is true. You don't get innovative new products by telling your engineers what to do. You get them by letting them "go rouge", as you put it. That's how you stay in business. But it creates communications issues between headquarters and the plants, which sometimes become public and which is probably what we are seeing evidence of here.
You can believe what you want. If you want to believe the footnote is the ultimate accurate information then by all means go for it.
Why would I think that ... they might go out of business with their own doing. I'm just stating what I see based on information available.
Stop making an old lady do your leg work. Contribute something to the community. Call Purolator yourself with your filter number.
Corrections: There is no conflicting information. Purolator's claim is not "a simple footnote". It is not on a single webpage - I posted 2 webpages. I read the Ascent thread. I do understand the curves. No other filter company has any more proof that their claims are correct than Purolator does. The Ascent test is almost 4 years old and is not proof since it was not sufficiently repeated. I am not a Purolator fan. Purolator is legally bound to claims on their web site, so it has as much weight if not more than the M+H spec sheets.I'm not conflicting myself, more like you really don't understand the filter efficiency vs particle size performance curve that's a result of an official ISO 4548-12 efficiency test. Go read my previous post again as I added info. If a filter is ISO efficiency at 50% @ 22u and also at 99% at 46u then BOTH those data points need to be on the curve, like shown in the official ISO test data graphs provided by Ascent in post linked in my previous post. Might be good for you to read that whole giant thread about Ascent conducting the ISO testing.
Because they are the parent company of Purolator, and have control of what "Purolator" does. If they can't operate their company correctly isn't anyone's fault but their own. There is zero proof that the single footnote efficiency claim on Purolator's website is true or not, but based official Spec Sheets from the parent company and Ascents ISO testing, I'm going to have to go with Ascent and M+H until someone can officially prove they are wrong. A simple footnote on a website isn't going to do it for me when there's other conflicting information with more weight. But if it does it for others who are Purolator fans then they should go buy those filters ... it's their car.
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.
They are all footnotes, that conflict with the parent company M+H official Spec Sheets. That certainly is a conflict in technical information. Why? .. and don't claim it's because of a "communication" problem, lol. I think M+H knows how to understand and communicate technical specs.
No, it's obvious that you don't really understand the ISO 4548-12 data graphs presented by Ascent. The Boss is shown by M+H to be 50% @ 22u and also 99% >46u. Those two efficiency points both need to be on the efficiency vs particle size curve. It's impossible for a filter that's 99% >46u to be more efficient than 99% at any particle size below 46 microns. That's why the Boss is 50% @ 22 microns per the Spec Sheet.
By a footnote ... but M+H is "Purolator", so there shouldn't be all these tech info conflicts.
The Ascent data still correlatives better with the M+H data than a footnote on Purolator's website. Show the proof that M+H changed the media and the efficiency is better than what the M+H Spec Sheet shows or the media in the filter when Ascent did his testing. Go have a few Boss filters officially ISO tested ... that would be solid proof. You sure seem like a fan.
Why are you arguing about it? People don't try to defend something they like or believe in, even if what they base their beliefs and arguments on is not accurate information. Like I said, based on all the information available it points to the Boss being less efficient than a simple footnote on a website indicates.
