Have a look at the results for the Toyota filter to get some feeling about how many larger particles were in the brew:
Yet none of those larger particles found its way through the leak you are hypothesizing?
Fram Endurance Flashlight Test in canister
- Thread starter Glenda W.
- Start date
Yet none of those larger particles found its way through the leak you are hypothesizing?
Look at the particle size distribution of the ISO test dust they used. It's not an even size distribution. Less larger particles.
That's only one shot of a small area on each media, so how representative is it? If he did 25 shots of each media in different areas whould the same assumed visible difference be seen? I'm sure it could vary some over the entire area of the media.
It’s a small sample size but to me they appear very similar if not the same. Definitely the same color.
I was just trying to answer Glenda's question.
Unfortunately trying to make sense of BR results is futile.
The only part I have any confidence in is the flow vs dP testing. The efficiency ranking has too much inconsistency with the ISO 4548-12 ranking of the same filters, for whatever reasons, which cold be a combination of filter construction flaws and/or test mythology factors. In the end, I will always go by the published ISO 4848-12 info to compare oil filter efficiency.
I actually don't have trouble making sense of it. It is another source of independent testing data, like the Ascent tests were, and I find it a valuable contribution to understanding the field. The tests were done recently on models still in circulation. All of the tests were done on the same apparatus using the same testing protocol. And the tests covered all of the products I am most interested in. Can't complain about that.
Demanding that all tests meet SAE standards only means that we will never again see the results of any independent testing, since it is way too expensive. Then the only data that we will have are the marketing numbers published by the manufacturers which I have proven to be aspirational at best, plus the anecdotal stuff here on BITOG.
Until BR can validate that their test setup and testing methodology actually correlates the tested filters in the same ranking order as with an official ISO 4548-12 efficiency test, then it's really just an unvalidated test that shouldn't be taken as gospel. it would be a big and expensive undertaking to validate their efficiency ranking methods, so that won't happen. Of coures people see tests like this on YouTube and believe it's totally accurate and some kind of gold standard test. Bet there were many people who went out and bought the Boss without knowing what the efficiency is using an actual certified ISO 4548-12 test.
Last edited:
At the very least BR should have tested each filter twice to see if his results were consistent and not different every time with his procedure/rig. The actual ISO test procedure was posted a few times here and the number of controls are in the dozens, BR followed 3 or 4. One example is BR used the correct dust, but he didn’t dry the dust to avoid clumping. Another was adding the correct amount of dust but not agitating the fluid correctly. The list goes on so I can’t say his results are accurate or repeatable.
Last edited:
Patman
Staff member
Forgive my ignorance on this one but who is BR?
Brand Ranks YouTube channel. A step up from Project Farm but still garage tests
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 728
Everyone in the USA went and bought the Boss based on the certified ISO 4548-12 test, who saw it, and value it. Jury is still out on which of the two numbers is correct and it may be awhile. Maybe one or two bought one seeing the non website test numbers here, but probably not. They still buy the One and Red based on the certified test, hasn’t been changed on the website. Don’t get hopes up yet.
Incorrect information isn't something to be "valued". Obviously the ISO efficiency on the M+H spec sheet is correct (for all the Purolator models), as the president of M+H has said the spec sheet is correct, and as you know the Purolator website has now been updated to reflect the spec sheet that is based on an official ISO 4548-12 test - LOOK HERE at the bottom of the page. Purolator hasn't updated their efficiency footnote for the ONE yet, which also does not match the official spec sheet of 99% @ 25u instead of the 99% @ 20u they show for the referenced PL30001 on their website.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 728
Reading, buyers valued it at the time they read it, including me. No one except people here read the spec sheet from Germany. You can go on Amazon now where they have a Purolator store and this morning it says 99+%@25 microns. People buying now are thinking that’s what it is. They value that information. You would too if not for the spec sheet.Incorrect information isn't something to be "valued". Obviously the ISO efficiency on the M+H spec sheet is correct (for all the Purolator models), as the president of M+H has said the spec sheet is correct, and as you know the Purolator website has now been updated to reflect the spec sheet that is based on an official ISO 4548-12 test - LOOK HERE at the bottom of the page. Purolator hasn't updated their efficiency footnote for the ONE yet, which also does not match the official spec sheet of 99% @ 25u instead of the 99% @ 20u they show for the referenced PL30001 on their website.
The president clearly didn’t know his product and somewhere in Purolator USA are the people who ran the certified tests in the USA, on filters being made in the USA. The website didn’t just say 99+%@25, it listed the certified test. You know that. So it will take time, jury is still out. They didn’t change the other ones, so they just did what the president told them. Sounds pretty clueless over there.
When you say the president knew the spec sheet was correct, you have no evidence of that. He is derelict in his duties if he knew and published false numbers. He apparently doesn’t know. Other people know, have to find them.
As promised, I just cut my FE4967 with 6,013 miles on it and did a flashlight test. I created a new post.
That's why I always look for multiple sources of information, because I know information is not always accurate, and when multiple information sources don't match there needs to be a reason why ... goes for many things in life, not just oil filters that change at a rapid rate. Who knows where that info on Purolator's website came from ... could have been left over old info before M+H changed things with time. People are easily fooled, and seem to latch on to what they want to see and hear ... it's a bad way to operate sometimes.
What are you talking about. The Purolator website use to say the PBL30001 was 99% @25 based on ISO 4548-12. Now it says the PBL30001 is 99% @46u, which matches the official spec sheet.
The jury is still out? ... LoL, the president of M+H says the jury has decided and that the spec sheets are correct.
You think the president of M+H didn't get the engineering department to verify the information and he just called up Purolator and demanded they change their website without verifying what was going on? LoL.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 728
“The Purolator website use to say the PBL30001 was 99% @25 based on ISO 4548-12. Now it says the PBL30001 is 99% @46u, which matches the official spec sheet.“
Obviously. If you can’t read all of what I said, then that isn’t my problem.
Obviously. If you can’t read all of what I said, then that isn’t my problem.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
This seems needlessly hostile, as do many of your posts in this forum. I can understand that you might not be pleased with these recent developments on the Purolator front, but this is becoming petty nonsense at this point.
So what's your point. Maybe you should communicate more clearly.
You posted: "The website didn’t just say 99+%@25, it listed the certified test."
And what I said is correct and the point that it was incorrect information (now over-ridden by official M+H spec sheets, and changed on Purolator's website) even if it did reference ISO 4548-12, regardless of what misconceptions you have latched on to ... just like back in the days of "goodtimes" and all the other handles.
Last edited:
Similar threads
