Fram Endurance vs Purolator Boss oil filters

[Glenda W.]

We as a community can’t in good faith call out M+H for torn media/closed louvers and not call out Fram/Champ for badly stamped leaf springs. That’s just playing favorites.

 

[fantastic]

I have not come across public specification documents from fram for their filters. I dont think these documents are available for public. People however did email Fram endurance customer support (myself included) to inquire about 99% efficiency, it was somewhere 5-10um @99% (dont recall exact numbers).
Could fram customer support be telling lies? I guess anything is possible.

You see that's what official black & white "spec sheets" do. They weed out incorrect data & sales pitches. I've emailed several companies & have gotten wrong information before as many of this board has. I'll need to email them to ask but again...Customer Service is not always official responses w/some companies asterisk* terms.

 

[Fair enough]

Its been discussed many times, the information on website does not match official specs provided by manufacturer of PLB. The specs are provided in this or other thread, you can also request them directly from manufacturer

It can be discussed a million times, digging for something else, but those are the numbers they publish in writing today. That’s what it is.
I have to add I trust the USA made filter data published far more than a filter made in China. Also that the filter I receive is consistently made to meet the data.

 

[MrBaumTastic]

I hadn't bought a Fram oil filter in 20+ years, but all the Fram Endurance talk got to me. I ordered 3 of them through Walmart for my 2021 Equinox 1.5T. I have to say it's got the most weight to it that I I've felt in this size of filter. The baseplate is super thick. The can feels very thick. It's a pretty filter. Are ~$12 oil filters really worth it? That is a first for me. I'm not going to run them for more than 4-5K miles in this turbo GDI engine.
View attachment 223388View attachment 223389

You really could cut the 20-25k mile filter longevity claim in half and still get 2 uses (5k OCIs) out of it.

Maybe I'm thinking of what I would do with a naturally aspirated GDI but still, 5k on these ultra premium filters seems wasteful, no judgment.

 

[MrBaumTastic]

Certainly not if you're going to waste them on such a short interval, turbo GDI or not.

Beat me to it

 

[Fair enough]

We as a community can’t in good faith call out M+H for torn media/closed louvers and not call out Fram/Champ for badly stamped leaf springs. That’s just playing favorites.

On the XG2 made in summer 2024 I cut open it was also the dirt and the end cap no longer has the protrusions on the base end. Both end caps are now the same, $ saving. When they drop the element into the can, cross fingers it lands in the center, there is no sideways protection from movement. The adbv does not sit in a recess. It lays on a dome where the base holes are. So it’s more than one strike for me, it was three.

 

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

Given the data from BR I think people should be open to the possibility that the Boss filter spec sheet is erroneous. Products can change and documents can fail to be updated. It’s not possible to know for sure right now though.

 

[tolian21]

so basically anyone can interpret data any way they want…. Very meaningful conclusion …
Its a bit of a stretch to say that boss has incorrect specs.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The Boss is 46um @99% & that is a fact from the spec sheets. You made the bold claim that Boss was a "Rock catcher" w/o knowing specific filter data from Fram?

Any filter with an efficiency of 99% @ 46u, regardless of brand, is a "rock catcher" to those that focus on filter efficiency. Has nothing to do with the efficiency of other filters.

 

[kschachn]

Shaping up like you’d expect for a “Fran

Any filter with an efficiency of 99% @ 46u, regardless of brand, is a "rock catcher" to those that focus on filter efficiency. Has nothing to do with the efficiency of other filters.

As verified by the vaunted, official, black-and-white data sheet.

Some of the arguments in this thread border on the bizarre.

 

[ZeeOSix]

You see that's what official black & white "spec sheets" do. They weed out incorrect data & sales pitches.

That's what Purolator should consider when their website efficiency claim for the referenced Boss doesn't match the official spec sheet for the same filter model.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Given the data from BR I think people should be open to the possibility that the Boss filter spec sheet is erroneous.

The M+H official spec sheets reference efficiency test spec ISO 4548-12. The BR efficiency test is not any kind of official test standard, and doesn't use calibrated real time up stream and down stream particle counters. It's a good attempt of a home made test, but not official except for the PC testing they send out. It's funny how YT creators become the new test specs source that somehow "proves" that world wide used test specs are invalid and over-ridden.

 

[himemsys]

Look at the bottom of this page:
https://www.purolatornow.com/en/products/oil-filters/purolator-boss.html
"*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PBL30001"
Contradicts the spec sheet but is more in line with the BR tests. Could it be the spec sheet is out of date?

edit: the asterisk is for a paragraph at the top of the page that says:
"SmartFUSION™ Full Synthetic Media providing maximum engine protection for up to 20,000 miles with over 99% Dirt Removal Power™*"

 

[Kira]

A related question: Will a cartridge element filter's performance match that of a canister?
I'm thinking of The Boss as they have an element filter for my application.

 

[fantastic]

Any filter with an efficiency of 99% @ 46u, regardless of brand, is a "rock catcher" to those that focus on filter efficiency. Has nothing to do with the efficiency of other filters.

You must know what is not a "rock catcher" before knowing what a rock catcher is. It has everything to do with how it "Compares" to similar filters on the market.

 

[MetalSlug]

BOSS

 

[fantastic]

That's what Purolator should consider when their website efficiency claim for the referenced Boss doesn't match the official spec sheet for the same filter model.

Yes, I agree & right along w/Fram that does the same. Referencing folks that have emailed Fram & gotten a worse efficiency response when that filter on their website advertises 95-99% At 20.

 

[ZeeOSix]

You must know what is not a "rock catcher" before knowing what a rock catcher is. It has everything to do with how it "Compares" to similar filters on the market.

The word means different things to different people. I mean you tend to make up your own definition of words. Fact is, the official spec sheet for the Boss says the ISO 4548-12 efficiency is 99% > 46u ... and Purolator false advertises it on their website. Like said, regardless of the filter brand, that's a 'rock catcher" to some people who understand filter efficiency ratings.

PS: A filter with an ISO 4548-12 efficiency of 50% @ 20u is also a "rock catcher". An efficiency of 99% >46u and 50% @ 20u are pretty close to each other I'd say.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I’d bet the Boss is more efficient than a Fram or Champ with gaps in the leaf spring.

I mentioned it may be that Boss rated as it did in the BR testing because the Fram and RP (Champ made filters) had leaky leaf springs, thereby reducing their efficiency in the same ballpark as the Boss. The Boss was obviously much less efficient in the official ISO 4548-12 test done by Ascent.

See post 222 ---> LINK

 

[Glenda W.]

I mentioned it may be that Boss rated as it did in the BR testing because the Fram and RP (Champ made filters) had leaky leaf springs, thereby reducing their efficiency in the same ballpark as the Boss. The Boss was obviously much less efficient in the official ISO 4548-12 test done by Ascent.

See post 222 ---> LINK

Absolutely possible.

Ascent even being a few years old is my go to.