List of Purolator failures
- Thread starter Stu_Rock
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: oaklandish_wrx
UOA came back OK... whew.
That's good to hear.
There's been a lot of conjecture regarding the the effects on engine wear from the Purolator tears with the expectation of increased wear metals.
It's always been my opinion that adequate filtration is still going on in spite of a small tear or two.
While the tears are neither desirable nor excusable, at least they are not damaging engines.
UOA came back OK... whew.
That's good to hear.
There's been a lot of conjecture regarding the the effects on engine wear from the Purolator tears with the expectation of increased wear metals.
It's always been my opinion that adequate filtration is still going on in spite of a small tear or two.
While the tears are neither desirable nor excusable, at least they are not damaging engines.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: oaklandish_wrx
UOA came back OK... whew.
That's good to hear.
There's been a lot of conjecture regarding the the effects on engine wear from the Purolator tears with the expectation of increased wear metals.
It's always been my opinion that adequate filtration is still going on in spite of a small tear or two.
While the tears are neither desirable nor excusable, at least they are not damaging engines.
I would have to agree. The filter still has 30 something pleats left that are filtering correctly. It is not like it is in full bypass mode or something. Not preferrable, but could be worse in my opinion
Originally Posted By: oaklandish_wrx
UOA came back OK... whew.
That's good to hear.
There's been a lot of conjecture regarding the the effects on engine wear from the Purolator tears with the expectation of increased wear metals.
It's always been my opinion that adequate filtration is still going on in spite of a small tear or two.
While the tears are neither desirable nor excusable, at least they are not damaging engines.
I would have to agree. The filter still has 30 something pleats left that are filtering correctly. It is not like it is in full bypass mode or something. Not preferrable, but could be worse in my opinion
^^^ Did I ever say they weren't? People read way too much "between the lines" around here.
That comment above was a tongue in cheek statement BTW.
But at this point in time I'd rather run an orange can over a Purolator (if those were the only choices) due to the still present tearing risk on Purolators. Really no real reports of orange cans failing all over the place at this time.
But at this point in time I'd rather run an orange can over a Purolator (if those were the only choices) due to the still present tearing risk on Purolators. Really no real reports of orange cans failing all over the place at this time.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
It sure is strange that no one has created a spreadsheet of failed Fram OC, TG, or Ultra trying to find a pattern. Maybe some of the Fram haters could start one?
I find it interesting that no one is keeping a talley of how many filters didn't fail. If I find some time soon, I may start one myself. It would be interesting to see what happens when we compare both data tables.
It sure is strange that no one has created a spreadsheet of failed Fram OC, TG, or Ultra trying to find a pattern. Maybe some of the Fram haters could start one?
I find it interesting that no one is keeping a talley of how many filters didn't fail. If I find some time soon, I may start one myself. It would be interesting to see what happens when we compare both data tables.
^^^ That data wouldn't make much sense here because you can't cut open and inspect every one used in the world to compare. Even if only 1 in 50 Purolators failed by cutting open every one of them ever used in the world, a 2% failure rate is way too high for a manufactured product like an oil filter. Any company in to hard core manufacturing will tell you they look for rates more like less than 1/10th that rate (0.02%, or 1 in 500), or even better depending on the product.
You could go down to the local Jiffy Lube with a nice filter cutter and gather some data/stats. You'd probably find a lot of torn Purolators.
You could go down to the local Jiffy Lube with a nice filter cutter and gather some data/stats. You'd probably find a lot of torn Purolators.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ That data wouldn't make much sense here because you can't cut open and inspect every one used in the world to compare. Even if only 1 in 50 Purolators failed by cutting open every one of them ever used in the world, a 2% failure rate is way too high for a manufactured product like an oil filter. Any company in to hard core manufacturing will tell you they look for rates more like less than 1/10th that rate (0.02%, or 1 in 500).
You could go down to the local Jiffy Lube with a nice filter cutter and gather some data/stats. You'd probably find a lot of torn Purolators.
Do you actually listen to yourself as you are writing these posts zo6? This has got to be one of the most ludacris comments you have ever made. The data on his chart (which was very well done by the way) came from this website. Not from "every filter in the world" or "a jiffy lube." You are just getting your undies in a bundle because I would make a chart showing the success rate of Purolators. This is not because I necessarily love or hate one filter over another, but it would be in an attempt to help solve the question of what filters, manufactured between what date ranges are prone to failure. Two charts, with data from the SAME source, can be useful when evaluating a problem like this one. Perhaps you aren't familiar with problem solving, or (more realistically) you have no intent on every being productive in these conversations. Give it a rest man.
^^^ That data wouldn't make much sense here because you can't cut open and inspect every one used in the world to compare. Even if only 1 in 50 Purolators failed by cutting open every one of them ever used in the world, a 2% failure rate is way too high for a manufactured product like an oil filter. Any company in to hard core manufacturing will tell you they look for rates more like less than 1/10th that rate (0.02%, or 1 in 500).
You could go down to the local Jiffy Lube with a nice filter cutter and gather some data/stats. You'd probably find a lot of torn Purolators.
Do you actually listen to yourself as you are writing these posts zo6? This has got to be one of the most ludacris comments you have ever made. The data on his chart (which was very well done by the way) came from this website. Not from "every filter in the world" or "a jiffy lube." You are just getting your undies in a bundle because I would make a chart showing the success rate of Purolators. This is not because I necessarily love or hate one filter over another, but it would be in an attempt to help solve the question of what filters, manufactured between what date ranges are prone to failure. Two charts, with data from the SAME source, can be useful when evaluating a problem like this one. Perhaps you aren't familiar with problem solving, or (more realistically) you have no intent on every being productive in these conversations. Give it a rest man.
^^^ I think you need to comprehend a little better (actually a lot better) than you have been - LOL. Of course I know the data in Stu_Rock's Excel spreadsheet is all the date from THIS forum. Re-read what I wrote a few times until you get the message.
So if your data showed that 25% of the Purolators cut open here failed, what would your "conclusion" be?
Go for it ... collect your data and see what it says, I'd be interested in seeing the data.
So if your data showed that 25% of the Purolators cut open here failed, what would your "conclusion" be?
Go for it ... collect your data and see what it says, I'd be interested in seeing the data.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
It sure is strange that no one has created a spreadsheet of failed Fram OC, TG, or Ultra trying to find a pattern. Maybe some of the Fram haters could start one?
Not sure there are any FRAM haters.
But there are a few Purohaters that go about their business like tent revival preachers just outside Sodom and Gomorrah.
They are busy hot-dip galvanizing the souls of innocent oil filter buyers from the ravages of the evil Purolators.
All this to protect the innocent filter buyer's eternal UOA's.
Oh, but there are no problems with the UOA's after running torn Purolators.
It sure is strange that no one has created a spreadsheet of failed Fram OC, TG, or Ultra trying to find a pattern. Maybe some of the Fram haters could start one?
Not sure there are any FRAM haters.
But there are a few Purohaters that go about their business like tent revival preachers just outside Sodom and Gomorrah.
They are busy hot-dip galvanizing the souls of innocent oil filter buyers from the ravages of the evil Purolators.
All this to protect the innocent filter buyer's eternal UOA's.
Oh, but there are no problems with the UOA's after running torn Purolators.
I don't know what constitutes a so called "Purohater" ... maybe that term is supposed to describe somebody who voices their concerns here and doesn't want to use Purolators anymore (even though they have for years), because they have a good chance of tearing during use?
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't know what constitutes a so called "Purohater" ... maybe that term is supposed to describe somebody who voices their concerns here and doesn't want to use Purolators anymore (even though they have for years), because they have a good chance of tearing during use?
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
sing it...
I don't know what constitutes a so called "Purohater" ... maybe that term is supposed to describe somebody who voices their concerns here and doesn't want to use Purolators anymore (even though they have for years), because they have a good chance of tearing during use?
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
sing it...
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't know what constitutes a so called "Purohater" ... maybe that term is supposed to describe somebody who voices their concerns here and doesn't want to use Purolators anymore (even though they have for years), because they have a good chance of tearing during use?
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
Thank you! Exactly! I'm one of those who choose not to continue to use Purolator products. Do I hate them? Absolutely not. I have used Purolator products for many years - not only oil filters, but air and tranny filters. But until I can have a little more confidence in their products I will use other makes.
I've always felt that the "Purohater" term is a little extreme and definitely not accurate.
I don't know what constitutes a so called "Purohater" ... maybe that term is supposed to describe somebody who voices their concerns here and doesn't want to use Purolators anymore (even though they have for years), because they have a good chance of tearing during use?
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
Thank you! Exactly! I'm one of those who choose not to continue to use Purolator products. Do I hate them? Absolutely not. I have used Purolator products for many years - not only oil filters, but air and tranny filters. But until I can have a little more confidence in their products I will use other makes.
I've always felt that the "Purohater" term is a little extreme and definitely not accurate.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
It sure is strange that no one has created a spreadsheet of failed Fram OC, TG, or Ultra trying to find a pattern. Maybe some of the Fram haters could start one?
Not sure there are any FRAM haters.
But there are a few Purohaters that go about their business like tent revival preachers just outside Sodom and Gomorrah.
They are busy hot-dip galvanizing the souls of innocent oil filter buyers from the ravages of the evil Purolators.
All this to protect the innocent filter buyer's eternal UOA's.
Oh, but there are no problems with the UOA's after running torn Purolators.
I used the term Fram hater to describe a group of people that state things like Fram sucks, will never use a Fram, hate cardboard endcaps, call cardboard end caps paper, ..... They may or may not actually hate Fram but I lump them together because deep down I think they all just doubt any oil filter Fram could ever supply. But it is probably more accurately described as cardboard fiber end cap haters....
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
It sure is strange that no one has created a spreadsheet of failed Fram OC, TG, or Ultra trying to find a pattern. Maybe some of the Fram haters could start one?
Not sure there are any FRAM haters.
But there are a few Purohaters that go about their business like tent revival preachers just outside Sodom and Gomorrah.
They are busy hot-dip galvanizing the souls of innocent oil filter buyers from the ravages of the evil Purolators.
All this to protect the innocent filter buyer's eternal UOA's.
Oh, but there are no problems with the UOA's after running torn Purolators.
I used the term Fram hater to describe a group of people that state things like Fram sucks, will never use a Fram, hate cardboard endcaps, call cardboard end caps paper, ..... They may or may not actually hate Fram but I lump them together because deep down I think they all just doubt any oil filter Fram could ever supply. But it is probably more accurately described as cardboard fiber end cap haters....
Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't know what constitutes a so called "Purohater" ... maybe that term is supposed to describe somebody who voices their concerns here and doesn't want to use Purolators anymore (even though they have for years), because they have a good chance of tearing during use?
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
Thank you! Exactly! I'm one of those who choose not to continue to use Purolator products. Do I hate them? Absolutely not. I have used Purolator products for many years - not only oil filters, but air and tranny filters. But until I can have a little more confidence in their products I will use other makes.
I've always felt that the "Purohater" term is a little extreme and definitely not accurate.
Well it's not like there are not equal or better products on the market for same or slightly more expensive (TG, Ultra, Royal P, Mobil 1, etc). So, for those that saw an issue with Puro its easy to find an equal or better filter with less concerns about quality issues and just switch. No need to consider Puro filters any more unless the filters I am using (Ultra and TG right now) have an issue.
But the derogatory name calling as "purohater" just shows an ignorant individual who you just learn to ignore (or use the ignore function of the website).
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't know what constitutes a so called "Purohater" ... maybe that term is supposed to describe somebody who voices their concerns here and doesn't want to use Purolators anymore (even though they have for years), because they have a good chance of tearing during use?
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
Thank you! Exactly! I'm one of those who choose not to continue to use Purolator products. Do I hate them? Absolutely not. I have used Purolator products for many years - not only oil filters, but air and tranny filters. But until I can have a little more confidence in their products I will use other makes.
I've always felt that the "Purohater" term is a little extreme and definitely not accurate.
Well it's not like there are not equal or better products on the market for same or slightly more expensive (TG, Ultra, Royal P, Mobil 1, etc). So, for those that saw an issue with Puro its easy to find an equal or better filter with less concerns about quality issues and just switch. No need to consider Puro filters any more unless the filters I am using (Ultra and TG right now) have an issue.
But the derogatory name calling as "purohater" just shows an ignorant individual who you just learn to ignore (or use the ignore function of the website).
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't know what constitutes a so called "Purohater" ... maybe that term is supposed to describe somebody who voices their concerns here and doesn't want to use Purolators anymore (even though they have for years), because they have a good chance of tearing during use?
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
Hallelujah brother!!
Cast out those Purolator devils!!!
But the UOA's for the Purolators with tears are fine.
Keep repeating that until it sinks in.
I don't know what constitutes a so called "Purohater" ... maybe that term is supposed to describe somebody who voices their concerns here and doesn't want to use Purolators anymore (even though they have for years), because they have a good chance of tearing during use?
People here are actually chastising members because they don't want to use a Purolator knowing it could tear ... that's really pretty messed up actually. You guys who feel warm and fuzzy using oil filters with media tears keep on doing that, but don't chastise members because they don't want to do the same thing.
Hallelujah brother!!
Cast out those Purolator devils!!!
But the UOA's for the Purolators with tears are fine.
Keep repeating that until it sinks in.
- Status
Similar threads
