Is There a Longer Version of the PL14459 PureONE?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look who's back....I guess you finally got the virus issue resolved?
As far as the filter goes...what type of vehicle do you have?
 
Originally Posted By: Warstud
Look who's back....I guess you finally got the virus issue resolved?


Yes, I was able to get my computer's virus problem resolved (I hope). I've scanned it with a dozen different scanners 100 different ways and it seems OK now.

Originally Posted By: Warstud
As far as the filter goes...what type of vehicle do you have?


It's for a 2004 Nissan Altima with the 3.5L V6. I'm currently running the PL14610 which is the longer version of the PL14612 that Purolator specifies.

I was thinking if the larger diameter PL14459 fit the mounting base, that I'd see if they had a long version of the PL14459 and use that instead of the PL14610.

The PL14459 is rated at 99.9% @ 20 microns, while the PL14610 is rated at 99.9% @ 40 microns.

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
No

the old 24458 PureOne was discontinued about 4 years ago.


Maybe I'll just use the shorter, but fatter PL14459 (if it fits the mount OK) since it has a better beta ratio. The larger diameter should give it about the same filter media area as the longer, slimmer PL14610.
 
Check out the PL14620. It's about 3.5 inches long. I cross-refed the PL14459 over to Wix and then back again to Purolator. I think the rest of the specs. match up, though I don't know about the efficiency rating. The gaskets are the same diameter as the PL14610, but obviously the cans are fatter. If there's room there, I might try one of these on my motorcycle too!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
Curious, where do you find the PureOne efficiency ratings?


From Purolator's website. See asterisk note at bottom of page ... " * Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001 "

http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx

What Purolator fails to show the consumer on thier website is that there are 4 spin-on filter that are rated at 99.9% @ 40 microns instead of 20 microns like all the other PureONEs.

PL14477 - O.D. 2.69, Height 3.52
PL14476 - O.D. 2.69, Height 2.93 (short version of PL1477)

PL14610 - O.D. 2.69, Height 3.52
PL14612 - O.D. 2.69, Height 2.93 (short version of PL14610)

14477 & 14476 are the SAE thread versions (3/4"-16).
14610 & 14612 are the metric thread versions (M20-1.5).

Ref:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...895#Post1695895
 
That's interesting. They list the number, but as you say the specs equal the 14610 when you click through. Frankly, how much real world difference is there between 99% at 40 vs. 99% at 20? Maybe the 14610 is 97.5% at 20 or so. That's still very good. I wish these filter companies would print beta ratios or something using a standard formula so we could compare apples to apples.
 
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
Frankly, how much real world difference is there between 99% at 40 vs. 99% at 20? Maybe the 14610 is 97.5% at 20 or so. That's still very good.


I agree ... it's probably still very good filtering performance. I'll use up the two PL14610s I have, then maybe consider using the PL14459 if it fits the mount with no issues due to it's larger diameter.
 
The 14459 should fit fine on your VQ. I used a classic on mine before and had no problems. I think you probably can't fit a filter that much longer than the 14610. It takes me so arm twisting to get to mine and there is not a lot of space to work around the plastic debris shield.

Just to pick your brain, is it better to have a filter that is 97.5% efficient at 20 microns (L14459) or 99.9% at 40 microns (PL14610)? I'm home for the weekend and just had to look over the Puro boxes after being informed about the difference in micron ratings here.
 
Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
The 14459 should fit fine on your VQ. I used a classic on mine before and had no problems. I think you probably can't fit a filter that much longer than the 14610. It takes me so arm twisting to get to mine and there is not a lot of space to work around the plastic debris shield.


Yes, you are correct that the PL14610 (it's 3.5" long) is as long as will fit without hitting the side of the wheel well plastic liner piece in front of the filter. I found it easy to change the filter on my Altima with the VQ35 V6. Turn the front wheels all the way to the right, remove plastic shield inside wheel well (4 pop-off fasteners) and the filter is right there will easy access. Don't even have to jack the car up - can get in easy with the wheels turned out.
thumbsup2.gif


Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Just to pick your brain, is it better to have a filter that is 97.5% efficient at 20 microns (L14459) or 99.9% at 40 microns (PL14610)?


Good question. No real way to tell ... but my "gut feel" is that it would probably be about even between them.
 
A little late to the party but here's my .02. As background, the PL14459 app is what Honda used on 90's model Accords. The 7th gen Civics and now Accords went to the slimmer PL14610 app. In 01, though the Civic spec'd the slimmer filter my local dealer still sold the shorter fatter PL14459 app. that has the same gasket diameter. Then, they finally went to the PL14610 app.

I'm not as quite particular as you about the 20um vs 40um rating of the PL14610 which I use in my Altima, Accord and daughters Civic. As AE alluded to, real world difference likely not very significant. Heck, right now I'm running an Advance Auto Total Grip on the Altima, Civic and a Tacoma, which is rated 96/94% (single/multi) efficient, likely at 20um but it doesn't specify. But $1.45 for a well made Puro filter, with the added benefit of texture, I'm not sweating it. In comparison to that, I know any new P1 or Classic is doing a good job.

In the 2.5L Altima, the filter is just above the oil pan on passenger side. Sounds like the same as the 3.5L. I think one time I removed the filter by turning the wheel to the right (didn't remove shield) when I changed the oil without using ramps. For me, it's just a lot easier to get to drain plug by putting it on ramps. Plus, I feel like I might be draining a little more oil out with the plug at the back of the pan, but that's more placebo effect.

But to the topic, the PL14459 should work fine and I expect it has a somewhat greater oil holding capacity than the slimmer PL14610. I don't know of any longer app for the PL14610.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top