LoL ... more analogous to all those clumps of excess glue all over place that could come loose. Not related to "wavy" pleats unless you have reverse distortion glasses on.
How is the Purolator One oil filter?
- Thread starter xsr
- Start date
I am a Purolator fanboi! Thanks for noticing. However, I'm not going to go around & claim Fram OCOx tearing everywhere a Fram discussion is posted (never have, never will) since that was yesterday's issues & not relevant today. I don't have a problem with any filter brands & enjoy all brands characteristics.
I just went out to the garage & took a pic of these wire backed filters just for you:
Feb 24, 2021 left & Feb 13, 2021 on the right.
You're the one making the bold claims about M&H tearing regularly above & beyond the others... I'm not & don't for any filters.
If you kept track I think you will find that to be true from what I've currently found looking back a year or so. Fact is, the M+H/Purolator made filters are still tearing. Difference between you and me is I don't care if there are some torn Frams (I even might say something negative about it), but you seem to care that someone points out that Purolator made filters are still tearing.
Here's the post were I showed you before that there was still recent tearing going on. Look above the post linked below, where I mentioned same thing. Purolator made filters seem to use a more brittle media than other brands, and when a filter comes out of the factory with wide pleat spacing it can be a bad combination leading to torn media. Other brands don't seem to have as brittle of media, and can take a lot more oil flow dP stress and pleat bending than a more brittle media can.
Fram Titanium FS10575 C&P
Wavy pleats don't do anything but "look bad". Some people are so hung up on wavy pleats now that they would use a filter that's total garbage efficiency if it has laser straight pleats after use. That's an indication that looks matter more than function or performance, and they don't really...
bobistheoilguy.com
Of course, we all know that if you want to ensure the media doesn't tear, use a filter with a wire or nylon mesh backing that reinforces the media.
I point it out when someone thinks it's not really going on anymore. It is, if you pay attention. It could be relevant to someone here wanting to know what's going on with oil filters. They can read and see the info and make up their own minds to buy and use what they decide based on the info. Some people think I'm a big Fram fanboy these days, but not really - I've used other brands since the Ultra love fest. It stems back to the Purolator media tearing heydays when people started to realize that torn media might not be the ideal thing to have on their engine, and many started to realize that the wire backed Fram Ultra was the filter to jump over to. And it's efficiency was just as good as the PureOne back then (but PureOne efficiency doesn't seem to be as good now as they were back then). I was a big Purolator user too until that point - then went with the OG Ultra. Lots of people fell in love with the Ultra over the years until it lost the wire backing and "wavy" pleats put a bad taste in their mouth, even though it's performance specs haven't changed.
I think they are Tears in the media not tears.There is zero evidence that wavy pleats cause media tears. Wide pleat spacing combined with weak brittle media causes tears. I need a new ghost writer - you're fired !!.
Happens when a BITOG member cuts open a filter from his car or ride-on mower and sees those wavy pleats, he starts to cry.
See Mr. O.P. !
Use the excellent OE Tokyo Roki or join the Drama Club!
Use the excellent OE Tokyo Roki or join the Drama Club!
Hermann
Site Donor 2023
Used Purolator Pure Ones on the 2008 Toyota for 10 years. never any problems but I'm not a cutter. Used to be cheap about $4-5 at AAP. Still have one left. Took it out of the box a month ago, still looked brand new, no rough paint flakes. Probably bought about 10 years ago. Stored in a heated and A/C garage.
Last edited:
Here's the PUROLATOR One PL14612 cut open . I'm using the MOBIL1 M1-110A that's related to the PUROLATOR .
Includes possible flaw of the FRAM bypass valve that's inserted into the metal end cap . Compared to built in bypass valve of the PUROLATOR One .
And this video that's 2 years old . CARQUEST Premium 85358 very similar to the PUROLATOR One PL14612 .
Includes possible flaw of the FRAM bypass valve that's inserted into the metal end cap . Compared to built in bypass valve of the PUROLATOR One .
And this video that's 2 years old . CARQUEST Premium 85358 very similar to the PUROLATOR One PL14612 .
Last edited:
Don't think the "light leak test" on that style of bypass valve is going to show light very well unless the seal gap is huge. Light would have to make a 90 deg path to be seen on the other side. The "light leak test" might be better done when the end cap is removed from the element.
If there were gaps the light would show in a pitch dark room with a flashlight inside the element. Photons never just stop and hold still. That’s not how energy works. A lot of the light will certainly reflect back out but not all of it and not when he was holding his hand over the hole when the tiny flashlight was inside.
Only if the light was able to reflect well enough inside the center tube and through the maze of the gap. It's not a straight line of sight gap, and of course the larger the gap, the easier for light to transmit through a path like that and be seen. If the test was done with the end cap off the element, the light could be better directed into the valve seam than just sticking a little flashlight inside the center tube.
I doubt that metal-on-metal seal is 100% tight under oil pressure, but in real use it probably doesn't leak any amount of oil to make a real difference. The overall efficiency test of an oil filter takes into account the bypass valve seal performance, as well as other sealing aspects in the design.
Meh, I agree with most of that.
As far as taking the end cap off to test, the more you dismantle a finished product the less likely components are to preform as intended. This is the issue I take with the flash light test with the champ leaf springs. It’s designed to function under a specific and even range of pressure. Cutting open the can removed that 1 part of a complete system. So how do we know how well it really does or doesn't seal?
Agree that bypass valve seal function would obviously have to be included in an overall efficiency test.
I'm going to disagree, because taking the end cap off the media isn't going to effect the spring on the bypass valve because it's built right into the end cap on a Purolator like that seen here. Even bypass valves like the style Fram uses with a coil spring as part of the leaf spring assembly isn't going to be effected if the leaf spring isn't under pressure as assembled inside the can. In both cases, the spring on the bypass valve is going to operate independent and the same regardless if it's in the assembled filter or not. Now as I mentioned in another thread, the spring constant of the bypass valve could decrease with heat, and that would slightly change the opening dP across the valve.
That’s not quite what I meant concerning the champ style leaf springs sealing. I’d have to wonder if it dosent make a great difference actually.
To a lesser degree the purolator style bypass valve design is going to be effected just by force of tearing the components apart.
How so? There is no stress put on the bypass valve in the end cap if you carefully cut the media away and separate the end cap. Whip City does it on every filter he does. Don't have to go gorilla on it, lol.
Maybe it’s just delicate like a flower.
Anyway I agree with the whip city wrencher guy. The pure one he cut open passed the test. He didn’t feel the need to try other means so he could say otherwise.
The pure ones are good fillers. Let me hear you say it.
One thing I could maybe see as possible is if the end cap is too flimsy and flexible (which I don't think it really is based on the ones I've cut open), and the leaf spring was so stiff that it caused the end cap to actually deform when assembled, and that in turn caused the end cap to deform and cause the metal-to-metal seal of the bypass valve to be compromised. But the actual hole where the bypass valve plate seals is formed in such a way to give the hole area really good structural integrity - see post 51 photo. So this "theory" is going down the rabbit hole pretty deep, and I don't think this is actually happening.
Last edited:
Have you ever even had one of these Purolator bypass valves in your hands? I have played around with them many times when I was using PureOnes. They are built stout, and you will not damage them - maybe with a hammer, lol. Whip City's test showed no light, but again all I'm saying is if the test was done like I described then it would be better validation of the "light leak test" for this particular bypass valve setup. Unknown how well that little flashlight put good light directly on the metal-to-metal seal. With the end cap off, the tester could put known good light on the seal and do a more thorough test. Testing is only as good as the procedure used. Goes with everything tested in the world.
As far as PureOnes ... I used them a lot before the tearing heydays. And from what I see today in the M+H/Purolator Spec Sheets, the ones today don't seem as filtering efficient as the older ones made before M+H came along. Plus, I don't like louvers much anymore because they are all over the place. Sure, inspect them first is the answer, but I'd rather have a center tube that's eCore or with holes. Today, they would not be near the top of my list to buy and use.
Last edited:
