I'm not seeing many filters available in Purolator. Mostly just engine oil filters for light duty stuff.
Maybe reconsider using M+H filters
- Thread starter skaughtz
- Start date
I understand your frustration but marketing is nothing new for oil filter companies & they've all been a bit misleading. Purolator has been the only one, albeit for a short time, allowed us to see the actual ISO testing data for any particular filter. That was a good thing that obviously shouldn't have ended. However, you can't go by marketing on boxes either which is a mistake for some here. That box advertising 99%@20 may or may not be for your filter. Like I mentioned no one else is offering spec sheets. Also, Purolator was not unique in marketing erroneous efficiency specs unfortunately.
I get it (I've been there)... That's the problem. We need data for the individual filter YOU want to use. Not just go by the marketing from these companies or vague email responses with no data to be shared that are tangible black & white data. All too often marketing wants to put out 99%@20 microns claims but leave out the fact that it only represents X, X, & X filter ISO tested. Unless you are using the one specifically called out in ISO testing the results may vary. Your's may be 99%@40 so what good does the box marketing do us...right.. ha! I'm a huge PG fanboy just due to their high quality consistency alone. That being said It's too bad, if rumors are true, that Purolator put out the cancellation of those spec sheets though.
Who else, and how was it "erroneous"?
The logic behind that has already been explained in many other threads. It's better than using the largest spin-on filter they make to base the efficiency claim on, like Purolator does for instance.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2024
- Messages
- 262
Same old quotes you'll see for the next 100 years. I've opened many Purolator One and Boss filters and there aren't any tears, closed louvers or loose glue. Actually, they are of excellent quality.
Same old members defending M+H for the next 100 years. I’ve viewed many Purulator c&p’s here with tears, closed louvers and loose glue. Actually, they are of
quality.It’s quite the show sometimes.Same old members defending M+H for the next 100 years. I’ve viewed many Purulator c&p’s here with tears, closed louvers and loose glue. Actually, they are of
I used and recommended Wix for over 20 years. I know it’s a hard pill to swallow but eventually you have to give up the ghost…
Like I've mentioned, the "average" is never better than "individual" ISO filter data if that's what you're referring to.
I'm referring to why a small, medium and large filter in the same line is efficiency tested. If they all use the same exact filter media, and the result is that the average ISO efficiency of that group is 99% @20u, then any size between them is going to also be that efficiency. If for some reason, certain models of filters in that filter line use a different filter media, and/or are much smaller than the smallest one in the referenced filters, then it could be outside the claimed efficiency.
And no company is going to do an actual ISO 1548-12 efficiency test on 100s of filters they make ... way too costly and time consuming. These days they can use computer models to get a good prediction of what a certain filter configuration is going to ISO test at, based on empirical test data to validate the computer model.
Last edited:
Even several with the same media, the average would mask the worst offender. Best to advertise filter efficiency individually of said tested filters. Put those x3 tested filters efficiency individually on the box & let the consumer decide. The filter companies are allowed to do what they want for marketing purposes.
If you test 3 filters, all with the same exact media, and the average ISO efficiency come out to 99% @ 20u, then there isn't much room for a low efficiency "offender" since 100% @ 20u is the best you can have at 20u.
Now if they tested 3 filters, all with the same media, and the average ISO efficiency came out to be 80% @ 20u, then there is a lot more room for a low efficiency "offender" in that group of 3 tested filters. That's probably one of the main reasons that some companies only reference their largest filter's ISO efficiency.
You don't know the media efficiency unless it's been ISO tested with data shown. That's the just of my comments. Otherwise you're just hoping a filter is efficient. Read up on all the previous threads if you're wanting to see what's already been mentioned.
I think you missed the whole point and the logic of testing a small, medium and large sized filter in the same model line using the same media. Those 3 referenced filters are ISO 4548-12 tested. Read again what I posted.
I'm talking about filters that come with no ISO data. That's the problem. This thread complains about lack of data & that was the issue I brought up/agreed with... Lack of data.
You're replying to a post with out of context relies (your post 52). Yes, some companies make an efficiency claim with no ISO 4548-12, or they just say "99% Dirt Trapping Power" or some nonsense like that with no associated particle micron size. I wasn't talking about that specifically, I was talking about the ones that do give ISO 14548-12 efficiency info.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 725
Purolator states “dirt removal power” 99%@ 20 microns.
https://www.purolatornow.com/en/products/oil-filters/purolator-one.html
All this bickering, the ISO test isn’t even like an engine running.
https://www.purolatornow.com/en/products/oil-filters/purolator-one.html
All this bickering, the ISO test isn’t even like an engine running.
I don't think that the lesser efficiency is going to harm the engine. I'm not that anal about oil filters. But the efficiency that they are advertising is not what the data they provide(d) supports.
That is the last spreadsheet that I can find for the ONE line. 99% at 30 microns. 30 > 20. 20 = LIE. If the data actually supports 20 microns now, we will never know because they won't provide it upon request.
I don't do business with companies that pull this kind of stuff and I know that others here do not as well. Thus the post.
The efficiency claim is wrong on Purolator's website for the PL30001. The Spec Sheet shows 99% @ 25u in case you missed that too. They should have changed it like they did for the BOSS after the pres of M+H got wind of the discrepancies.
Similar threads
