Check out the graph up top from Ascent Filtration Testing and look at the official testing numbers.WOW! twice on Sunday. I'm convinced
Check out the graph up top from Ascent Filtration Testing and look at the official testing numbers.WOW! twice on Sunday. I'm convinced
Parroting happens everyday and twice on wendsdayWOW! twice on Sunday. I'm convinced
To add ... Ascent's ISO 4548-12 test used the same Boss PBL22500 model as BR tested, and as you mentioned Ascent got 99% @ 35u, but it also fell off horribly to 62% @ 20u (see below). It's likely a big "debris slougher" as it loads up. The Boss ranking 3rd overall in efficiency of all filters tested by BR so far is out of wack based on how it did in the official ISO 4548-12 done by Ascent, and how it would rank if comparing official ISO 4548-12 test efficiency.Something I noticed recently about the data sheets that have been floating around lately for Purolator BOSS filters, is that in the fine print on the page margins they all seem to have a date code of 05/2000.
Another thing that indicates that these tests are very old is the fact that they used an oil viscosity of 24 cST, which was the standard test viscosity back in the 1997 version of ISO 4548. The viscosity required for the ISO tests has been 15 cST since the 2000 version of the standard was introduced.
So the 46 micron rating is likely from tests done 24 years ago, and is more in line with Purolator's previous claims of 99% efficiency at 40 micron for the BOSS filters. These days they claim 99% at 25 micron in their marketing, and the Ascent test showed 99% at 34 micron. I think the BOSS filters are probably quite a bit more efficient than 46 micron these days.
Still, the Endurance should be a lot more efficient. Here are some recent microscope pics of filter media, comparing a FRAM Endurance to a WIX XP, which seems to use the same media as the Purolator BOSS:
![]()
WOW! twice on Sunday. I'm convinced
we know the endurance filters better as the endurance is the same filter as the royal purple in the graph above.The Endurance tested better than the BOSS in BR's test and people seem to be satisfied with that. But when it comes to the BOSS, everyone points to 1 test and a 20 yeard old test done by Purolator
the data has been presented. it is official data none the less.Parroting happens everyday and twice on wendsday. But I’m still not convinced either.
It’s really a champion labs filter unfortunately both champion labs and fram were bought by the same company.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
That "one test" was performed on the same million-dollar equipment that all major oil filter manufacturers use. People just don't want to accept the Purolator Boss just isn't that great of a filter compared to the competition.The Endurance tested better than the BOSS in BR's test and people seem to be satisfied with that. But when it comes to the BOSS, everyone points to 1 test and a 20 yeard old test done by Purolator
The Fram Endurance is the same filter as the Royal Purple and Amsoil filters all created by Champion Labs.It’s really a champion labs filter unfortunately both champion labs and fram were bought by the same company.
For some reason they have butchered the fram line up quality and have mostly left champion alone for now anyway.
The Endurance should test better than the Boss since the ISO 4548-12 efficiency for the FE is 99%+ @ 20u. The Royal Purple (same as the FE) tested at 99% @ 20u in the Ascent test. The BR testing says the Boss is ranked 3rd for "efficiency", which means it would have to be really close to 99% @ 20u also. But The Boss that Ascent tested (same model Boss PBL22500 that BR tested) came in at 99% @ 35u (and 62% @ 20u) - so not even close.The Endurance tested better than the BOSS in BR's test and people seem to be satisfied with that. But when it comes to the BOSS, everyone points to 1 test and a 20 yeard old test done by Purolator
Most wear occurs from particles that are less than about 20 microns in size.One approach is to actually run the filter in the vehicle you drive with the oil you use in the manner you drive and then have an oil analysis done with a particle count.
Most of the particles wind up in the oil through the air intake, so if you’re using a high quality air filter and keep the intake system in order you’ve already solved most of the problem.
The particle size is inversely proportional to the potential for wear - obviously larger particles are more damaging than smaller ones are.
And that gets into the issue of capacity. If I install a filter that can grab 99% of the particles at 5 microns it is more likely to stop filtering than one that lets all the 5 micron particles pass and grabs 99% of the 15 micron particles.
There are trade-offs between all these parameters and how you drive.
For example a high efficiency low capacity low flow filter is going be in bypass more often if you drive with a lead foot than a less efficient higher flow filter.
Every engine wear study says that the particles that are 20u and smaller do the most wear. If a particle is too large to get between parts clearances, and into the super small oil film between moving parts, then they can't cause wear. Larger particles can get broken into smaller pieces, and then those can cause wear.The particle size is inversely proportional to the potential for wear - obviously larger particles are more damaging than smaller ones are.
There are too many variables affecting when and how long an oil filter may bypass to make a general claim like that. High efficiency filters can actually flow better (ie, a lower dP vs flow curve) than some less efficient filters. And the bypass setting of the filter should be designed to account for any additional flow resistance the filter may have new and as it loads up.For example a high efficiency low capacity low flow filter is going be in bypass more often if you drive with a lead foot than a less efficient higher flow filter.
Certainly not if you're going to waste them on such a short interval, turbo GDI or not.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.
Most wear occurs from particles that are less than about 20 microns in size.
And?![]()
Analysis of Large Wear Debris is Essential for Comprehensive Oil Analysis
This article intentionally focuses attention on analysis of large wear particles because the resulting analysis information enables informed users time for planned maintenance instead of surprise reactive unplanned repairs.blog.spectrosci.com
![]()
Anatomy of Wear Debris
This article is the fourth part of a series of “anatomy” lessons within Machinery Lubrication. In this issue, the various modes by which wear debris is created will be examined along with the...www.machinerylubrication.com
Most wear occurs from particles that can get between surfaces that should be separated by a film.
Most of those come from the air intake.
It shows the limitations of a spectrographic analysis, contrary to your assertion that it is relevant.
I don't think the Purolator Boss was around in the year 2000 ... so why would they have spec sheets for the Boss with the supposed date code of "05/2000" on the spec sheets?Another thing that indicates that these tests are very old is the fact that they used an oil viscosity of 24 cST, which was the standard test viscosity back in the 1997 version of ISO 4548. The viscosity required for the ISO tests has been 15 cST since the 2000 version of the standard was introduced.
That drop in efficiency is pretty similar to drop in efficiency for the AC Delco at 20 microns from the same test. It passed 2.7 times more dust during the fourth measurement period vs the first, vs 2.9 times as much for the Purolator BOSS. So I don't think the BOSS is particularly bad in terms of particle shedding.If you looked at the raw particle counters data at 20u as the PBL22500 loaded up, the efficiency went from ~85% when 15% loaded down to ~53% efficient when the filter was 65% loaded. The 50% loaded point basically equates to the ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating (ie, the average efficiency from 0% to 100% loaded) when the efficiency decrease as the filter loads up is near linear as shown below. The 50% loaded point below equates to ~62% efficiency at 20u just as the Ascent graph below also shows.