I use a Fram TG also not a "OCOD" as you say. So you would you run this filter without hesitation? My opinion is unbiased also, I just choose to not use them. I will not argue, but say that there is no way to tell if it tore until you cut one open.
NEW Bosch #3330 (CUT OPEN)
- Thread starter 53' Stude
- Start date
- Status
or also if I ran this filter for the 5,000 miles my manual states.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,835
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I maintain the point that it was a combination of a small (one year or so) bad production run and people using these filters in ways they were not designed to be used.
Qualify the statement I have bolded in your post--you are essentially saying that every person who had a torn filter was misusing it and the odds of that are near ZERO. The P1 that tore in three places that I used was certainly not used in a way that it was not designed to be. Purolator has a use statement that contains an "or" in it and this means that it can be used as described on either side of the "or" if applicable.
In many of your past posts, you tend to overlook the "or" in the use statement--which is "Purolator PureONE oil filters should be replaced every 3,000 miles or 3 months depending on the driving conditions - OR unless otherwise specified by the vehicle's manufacturer." This means if Ford, GM, Dodge, etc. has a 5K or 7.5K OCI listed in the OM, the P1 can be used for that long WITH Purolator's blessing.
I maintain the point that it was a combination of a small (one year or so) bad production run and people using these filters in ways they were not designed to be used.
Qualify the statement I have bolded in your post--you are essentially saying that every person who had a torn filter was misusing it and the odds of that are near ZERO. The P1 that tore in three places that I used was certainly not used in a way that it was not designed to be. Purolator has a use statement that contains an "or" in it and this means that it can be used as described on either side of the "or" if applicable.
In many of your past posts, you tend to overlook the "or" in the use statement--which is "Purolator PureONE oil filters should be replaced every 3,000 miles or 3 months depending on the driving conditions - OR unless otherwise specified by the vehicle's manufacturer." This means if Ford, GM, Dodge, etc. has a 5K or 7.5K OCI listed in the OM, the P1 can be used for that long WITH Purolator's blessing.
We've looked at enough filters now that we can safely put Puro/OCOD/TG/E-core at the bottom of the barrel of junk filters. Why is anyone defending them? Why would anyone who knows better use them? Some look good, some look awful. Why would anyone invest time in finding what is best for their engine and then use something with such inconsistent quality?
Seeing the off center media, looks like the quality is getting worse, not better. Not the spacing, which still looks like the torn ones anyway, but centering. No one would take that home off a shelf instead of a correctly made one. Problem is it's in the can so no one can see.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
We've looked at enough filters now that we can safely put Puro/OCOD/TG/E-core at the bottom of the barrel of junk filters. Why is anyone defending them? Why would anyone who knows better use them? Some look good, some look awful. Why would anyone invest time in finding what is best for their engine and then use something with such inconsistent quality?
+1 here ^.
Of course, getting the blessing of the self-appointed BITOG oil filter shaman can ward away many evil spirits.
We've looked at enough filters now that we can safely put Puro/OCOD/TG/E-core at the bottom of the barrel of junk filters. Why is anyone defending them? Why would anyone who knows better use them? Some look good, some look awful. Why would anyone invest time in finding what is best for their engine and then use something with such inconsistent quality?
+1 here ^.
Of course, getting the blessing of the self-appointed BITOG oil filter shaman can ward away many evil spirits.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
You are just going off the brand and not the filter before you.
Just bashing a brand based on bias alone.
Discussion continued
Hummm ... sounds familiar, huh?
BTW - you did see my comment about this filter in this thread, big surprise?
You are just going off the brand and not the filter before you.
Just bashing a brand based on bias alone.
Discussion continued
Hummm ... sounds familiar, huh?
BTW - you did see my comment about this filter in this thread, big surprise?
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: car51
Pleat spacing seems a bit wide wouldn't you agree JK_636? Also, please give us insight as to why the media seems undersized.
Aside from a few unevenly spaced pleats (which are nothing more than esthetics) the media seems fine. I don't see anything catastrophically wrong with it.
And if you are a fan of the OCOD (which i believe you are unless I'm mistaken) than pleat spacing shouldn't be an issue right?
Gotta watch out on pleat spacing, especially if the media is brittle and prone to tearing. That's what got Purolator in trouble in the first place.
Now take an orange can Fram and the media in those seem to be able to take a lot of bending/flexing without tearing.
So for Purolator, it seems they really need to watch the pleat spacing and especially the V-spread of the pleats near the seam. This particular Bosch seems to have a little better pleat spacing (not perfect), but has very small V-spread which is a plus.
Originally Posted By: car51
Pleat spacing seems a bit wide wouldn't you agree JK_636? Also, please give us insight as to why the media seems undersized.
Aside from a few unevenly spaced pleats (which are nothing more than esthetics) the media seems fine. I don't see anything catastrophically wrong with it.
And if you are a fan of the OCOD (which i believe you are unless I'm mistaken) than pleat spacing shouldn't be an issue right?
Gotta watch out on pleat spacing, especially if the media is brittle and prone to tearing. That's what got Purolator in trouble in the first place.
Now take an orange can Fram and the media in those seem to be able to take a lot of bending/flexing without tearing.
So for Purolator, it seems they really need to watch the pleat spacing and especially the V-spread of the pleats near the seam. This particular Bosch seems to have a little better pleat spacing (not perfect), but has very small V-spread which is a plus.
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I maintain the point that it was a combination of a small (one year or so) bad production run and people using these filters in ways they were not designed to be used.
Qualify the statement I have bolded in your post--you are essentially saying that every person who had a torn filter was misusing it and the odds of that are near ZERO. The P1 that tore in three places that I used was certainly not used in a way that it was not designed to be. Purolator has a use statement that contains an "or" in it and this means that it can be used as described on either side of the "or" if applicable.
In many of your past posts, you tend to overlook the "or" in the use statement--which is "Purolator PureONE oil filters should be replaced every 3,000 miles or 3 months depending on the driving conditions - OR unless otherwise specified by the vehicle's manufacturer." This means if Ford, GM, Dodge, etc. has a 5K or 7.5K OCI listed in the OM, the P1 can be used for that long WITH Purolator's blessing.
Getting 'or' is almost as complicated as getting '>'. LoL
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I maintain the point that it was a combination of a small (one year or so) bad production run and people using these filters in ways they were not designed to be used.
Qualify the statement I have bolded in your post--you are essentially saying that every person who had a torn filter was misusing it and the odds of that are near ZERO. The P1 that tore in three places that I used was certainly not used in a way that it was not designed to be. Purolator has a use statement that contains an "or" in it and this means that it can be used as described on either side of the "or" if applicable.
In many of your past posts, you tend to overlook the "or" in the use statement--which is "Purolator PureONE oil filters should be replaced every 3,000 miles or 3 months depending on the driving conditions - OR unless otherwise specified by the vehicle's manufacturer." This means if Ford, GM, Dodge, etc. has a 5K or 7.5K OCI listed in the OM, the P1 can be used for that long WITH Purolator's blessing.
Getting 'or' is almost as complicated as getting '>'. LoL
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Seeing the off center media, looks like the quality is getting worse, not better. Not the spacing, which still looks like the torn ones anyway, but centering. No one would take that home off a shelf instead of a correctly made one. Problem is it's in the can so no one can see.
The L14459 and the PL14459 filters also had the end caps that looked bigger than the media and showed the same symptom of non-centered end caps. Doubt it really hurts anything as long as everything is sealed properly.
Seeing the off center media, looks like the quality is getting worse, not better. Not the spacing, which still looks like the torn ones anyway, but centering. No one would take that home off a shelf instead of a correctly made one. Problem is it's in the can so no one can see.
The L14459 and the PL14459 filters also had the end caps that looked bigger than the media and showed the same symptom of non-centered end caps. Doubt it really hurts anything as long as everything is sealed properly.
Originally Posted By: car51
I use a Fram TG also not a "OCOD" as you say. So you would you run this filter without hesitation? My opinion is unbiased also, I just choose to not use them. I will not argue, but say that there is no way to tell if it tore until you cut one open.
The TG is the same cardboard wonder design as the orange can. My personal opinion is that the lower end Frams and E-cores are designed to be built as cheaply as possible, and without a complete redesign will never be a quality filter.
I use a Fram TG also not a "OCOD" as you say. So you would you run this filter without hesitation? My opinion is unbiased also, I just choose to not use them. I will not argue, but say that there is no way to tell if it tore until you cut one open.
The TG is the same cardboard wonder design as the orange can. My personal opinion is that the lower end Frams and E-cores are designed to be built as cheaply as possible, and without a complete redesign will never be a quality filter.
The Fram EG is a cost cutter filter, but it could have nice even pleats, plus more pleats, and cost cut, but it doesn't. I wouldn't use them. A Toyota filter is about as cost cutting as it gets, there are minimal materials that are expensive, yet it is high quality in function. Ironically cartridge filters can have synthetic or no end caps, no steel can or much of anything, but the consumer pays through the nose for them anyway.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Fram EG is a cost cutter filter, but it could have nice even pleats, plus more pleats, and cost cut, but it doesn't. I wouldn't use them. A Toyota filter is about as cost cutting as it gets, there are minimal materials that are expensive, yet it is high quality in function. Ironically cartridge filters can have synthetic or no end caps, no steel can or much of anything, but the consumer pays through the nose for them anyway.
All the cartridge filters I've used on MB, BMW, VW and Audi are e-core, cardboard or no ends and cost $5-7.... never had issues (Hengst, Mahle, Bosch or Mann). Not to mention they're almost always larger (longer) than any spin oil filter I've seen for most passenger vehicles.
The Fram EG is a cost cutter filter, but it could have nice even pleats, plus more pleats, and cost cut, but it doesn't. I wouldn't use them. A Toyota filter is about as cost cutting as it gets, there are minimal materials that are expensive, yet it is high quality in function. Ironically cartridge filters can have synthetic or no end caps, no steel can or much of anything, but the consumer pays through the nose for them anyway.
All the cartridge filters I've used on MB, BMW, VW and Audi are e-core, cardboard or no ends and cost $5-7.... never had issues (Hengst, Mahle, Bosch or Mann). Not to mention they're almost always larger (longer) than any spin oil filter I've seen for most passenger vehicles.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I maintain the point that it was a combination of a small (one year or so) bad production run and people using these filters in ways they were not designed to be used.
Qualify the statement I have bolded in your post--you are essentially saying that every person who had a torn filter was misusing it and the odds of that are near ZERO. The P1 that tore in three places that I used was certainly not used in a way that it was not designed to be. Purolator has a use statement that contains an "or" in it and this means that it can be used as described on either side of the "or" if applicable.
In many of your past posts, you tend to overlook the "or" in the use statement--which is "Purolator PureONE oil filters should be replaced every 3,000 miles or 3 months depending on the driving conditions - OR unless otherwise specified by the vehicle's manufacturer." This means if Ford, GM, Dodge, etc. has a 5K or 7.5K OCI listed in the OM, the P1 can be used for that long WITH Purolator's blessing.
What I meant was that some people use them in ways not intended. For example, using them as paper weights, wearing them as hats, using classics for 10k miles, you know things like that.
I
Originally Posted By: dishdude
We've looked at enough filters now that we can safely put Puro/OCOD/TG/E-core at the bottom of the barrel of junk filters. Why is anyone defending them? Why would anyone who knows better use them? Some look good, some look awful. Why would anyone invest time in finding what is best for their engine and then use something with such inconsistent quality?
You lumped an entire brand (Puro) with specific junk filters of other manufacturers. That is assanine.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636
You are just going off the brand and not the filter before you.
Just bashing a brand based on bias alone.
Discussion continued
Hummm ... sounds familiar, huh?
BTW - you did see my comment about this filter in this thread, big surprise?
I didn't notice. no doubt it was something about a Fram ultra right?
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: car51
I use a Fram TG also not a "OCOD" as you say. So you would you run this filter without hesitation? My opinion is unbiased also, I just choose to not use them. I will not argue, but say that there is no way to tell if it tore until you cut one open.
The TG is the same cardboard wonder design as the orange can. My personal opinion is that the lower end Frams and E-cores are designed to be built as cheaply as possible, and without a complete redesign will never be a quality filter.
Agreed. Anything cardboard or plastic is [censored]. I don't even like frams crummy plastic relief valves. Talk about cost cutting [censored].
Originally Posted By: bmwpowere36m3
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Fram EG is a cost cutter filter, but it could have nice even pleats, plus more pleats, and cost cut, but it doesn't. I wouldn't use them. A Toyota filter is about as cost cutting as it gets, there are minimal materials that are expensive, yet it is high quality in function. Ironically cartridge filters can have synthetic or no end caps, no steel can or much of anything, but the consumer pays through the nose for them anyway.
All the cartridge filters I've used on MB, BMW, VW and Audi are e-core, cardboard or no ends and cost $5-7.... never had issues (Hengst, Mahle, Bosch or Mann). Not to mention they're almost always larger (longer) than any spin oil filter I've seen for most passenger vehicles.
Completely different ballgame.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I maintain the point that it was a combination of a small (one year or so) bad production run and people using these filters in ways they were not designed to be used.
Qualify the statement I have bolded in your post--you are essentially saying that every person who had a torn filter was misusing it and the odds of that are near ZERO. The P1 that tore in three places that I used was certainly not used in a way that it was not designed to be. Purolator has a use statement that contains an "or" in it and this means that it can be used as described on either side of the "or" if applicable.
In many of your past posts, you tend to overlook the "or" in the use statement--which is "Purolator PureONE oil filters should be replaced every 3,000 miles or 3 months depending on the driving conditions - OR unless otherwise specified by the vehicle's manufacturer." This means if Ford, GM, Dodge, etc. has a 5K or 7.5K OCI listed in the OM, the P1 can be used for that long WITH Purolator's blessing.
What I meant was that some people use them in ways not intended. For example, using them as paper weights, wearing them as hats, using classics for 10k miles, you know things like that.
I
Originally Posted By: dishdude
We've looked at enough filters now that we can safely put Puro/OCOD/TG/E-core at the bottom of the barrel of junk filters. Why is anyone defending them? Why would anyone who knows better use them? Some look good, some look awful. Why would anyone invest time in finding what is best for their engine and then use something with such inconsistent quality?
You lumped an entire brand (Puro) with specific junk filters of other manufacturers. That is assanine.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636
You are just going off the brand and not the filter before you.
Just bashing a brand based on bias alone.
Discussion continued
Hummm ... sounds familiar, huh?
BTW - you did see my comment about this filter in this thread, big surprise?
I didn't notice. no doubt it was something about a Fram ultra right?
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: car51
I use a Fram TG also not a "OCOD" as you say. So you would you run this filter without hesitation? My opinion is unbiased also, I just choose to not use them. I will not argue, but say that there is no way to tell if it tore until you cut one open.
The TG is the same cardboard wonder design as the orange can. My personal opinion is that the lower end Frams and E-cores are designed to be built as cheaply as possible, and without a complete redesign will never be a quality filter.
Agreed. Anything cardboard or plastic is [censored]. I don't even like frams crummy plastic relief valves. Talk about cost cutting [censored].
Originally Posted By: bmwpowere36m3
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Fram EG is a cost cutter filter, but it could have nice even pleats, plus more pleats, and cost cut, but it doesn't. I wouldn't use them. A Toyota filter is about as cost cutting as it gets, there are minimal materials that are expensive, yet it is high quality in function. Ironically cartridge filters can have synthetic or no end caps, no steel can or much of anything, but the consumer pays through the nose for them anyway.
All the cartridge filters I've used on MB, BMW, VW and Audi are e-core, cardboard or no ends and cost $5-7.... never had issues (Hengst, Mahle, Bosch or Mann). Not to mention they're almost always larger (longer) than any spin oil filter I've seen for most passenger vehicles.
Completely different ballgame.
So if I ran this filter for 5k, do you think it would hold up well?
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: dishdude
We've looked at enough filters now that we can safely put Puro/OCOD/TG/E-core at the bottom of the barrel of junk filters. Why is anyone defending them? Why would anyone who knows better use them? Some look good, some look awful. Why would anyone invest time in finding what is best for their engine and then use something with such inconsistent quality?
You lumped an entire brand (Puro) with specific junk filters of other manufacturers. That is assanine.
Dishdude probably wasn't talking about Purolator Synthetic/Bosch Long Life synthetic filters since those have wire-backed media and didn't have any reported media tears on here in the past.
One thing is for certain .... if I've been away from BITOG for a little while and then return, it's like picking up right where I left off -- people still discussing/arguing about Purolator and FRAM filters ... lol.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
We've looked at enough filters now that we can safely put Puro/OCOD/TG/E-core at the bottom of the barrel of junk filters. Why is anyone defending them? Why would anyone who knows better use them? Some look good, some look awful. Why would anyone invest time in finding what is best for their engine and then use something with such inconsistent quality?
You lumped an entire brand (Puro) with specific junk filters of other manufacturers. That is assanine.
Dishdude probably wasn't talking about Purolator Synthetic/Bosch Long Life synthetic filters since those have wire-backed media and didn't have any reported media tears on here in the past.
One thing is for certain .... if I've been away from BITOG for a little while and then return, it's like picking up right where I left off -- people still discussing/arguing about Purolator and FRAM filters ... lol.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: dishdude
We've looked at enough filters now that we can safely put Puro/OCOD/TG/E-core at the bottom of the barrel of junk filters. Why is anyone defending them? Why would anyone who knows better use them? Some look good, some look awful. Why would anyone invest time in finding what is best for their engine and then use something with such inconsistent quality?
You lumped an entire brand (Puro) with specific junk filters of other manufacturers. That is assanine.
You're right, should have been more specific to Classic/P1
Originally Posted By: dishdude
We've looked at enough filters now that we can safely put Puro/OCOD/TG/E-core at the bottom of the barrel of junk filters. Why is anyone defending them? Why would anyone who knows better use them? Some look good, some look awful. Why would anyone invest time in finding what is best for their engine and then use something with such inconsistent quality?
You lumped an entire brand (Puro) with specific junk filters of other manufacturers. That is assanine.
You're right, should have been more specific to Classic/P1
- Status
