*New* Purolator Synthetic Filter *Pics*

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr

Interesting information, to bad some of it is not correct. The extended guard is not a paper then synthetic media, it is two layers of synthetic media. Plus what they call synthetic filters is not correct as well.


I did not say it was a layer of paper and a layer of synthetic filter material. I said dual "layer cellulose and synthetic" As I ment it, "a blend of cellulose and synthetic in 2 layers". Much like in marketing you read what you wanted.
smirk.gif


I Agree a cellulose/synthetic blend should not be called a synthetic, but that is marketing.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sacrificing a filter for us. I just want to confirm that the PSL14612 says 99% at 25 microns on the box b/c I believe the PL14612 and PL14610 (slightly longer version) say 99.9% at 40 microns on the box.
 
Originally Posted By: chambers
I believe the PL14612 and PL14610 (slightly longer version) say 99.9% at 40 microns on the box.

Confirmed for the PL14610. I have a box in front of me right now and the back has a note that says the 99.9% efficiency rating is "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 40 microns."

I also have a Bosch Premium 3323 (i.e. essentially the same thing as PL14610) which also indicates a 99.9% efficiency rating but the box doesn't have any additional details.
 
Quote:
Interesting information, to bad some of it is not correct. The extended guard is not a paper then synthetic media, it is two layers of synthetic media. Plus what they call synthetic filters is not correct as well.

Just wondering where you got the information that the XG is a full synthetic with two layers of synthetic media. It doesn't say that on the overview of the XG on the Fram site. In fact, it implies that the media is a blend of cellulose and synthetic saying;

* By adding microscopic synthetic fibers, small windows are created that trap the smaller dirt particles without affecting the flow of oil. Blending synthetic fibers with cellulose increases a filter’s dirt-trapping efficiency and its dirt-holding capacity for higher levels of engine protection and longer filter life. http://www.fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_xtended_guard_oil_filter/?select_region=1

Also unclear as to who the "they" is in, "what they call synthetic filters is not correct as well?"

As for the previously linked Subie oil filter comparo, I too noted some discrepancies in the information, but overall it is an organized commendable effort imo.
 
Originally Posted By: chambers
Thanks for sacrificing a filter for us. I just want to confirm that the PSL14612 says 99% at 25 microns on the box b/c I believe the PL14612 and PL14610 (slightly longer version) say 99.9% at 40 microns on the box.


PSL14612, It says "99% Dirt Trapping Efficiency*"

* "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"

PL14612 IS indeed 99.9% at 40 microns.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: sayjac

As for the previously linked Subie oil filter comparo, I too noted some discrepancies in the information, but overall it is an organized commendable effort imo.


Thank you. As for what you noticed discrepancy wise, may I ask what it/they are?

As I posted at the end of the 1st post in that thread,

Quote:
If you see anything listed that you know for sure is wrong, by all means PM me what it is along with the information you have suggesting it is other then stated. Mistakes happen, it is a fact of life, but I will correct what I can.


I am always open to criticism and would rather be shown some thing is wrong and be able to make the needed corrections(PL14612 Beta ratio has been corrected) then leave it out there for others to be misinformed by.

As a note per the http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx page P1s are rated at "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001" yet the box says "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 40 microns on PL30001"

Makes one wonder, which is correct?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: flstffxe


PSL14612, It says "99% Dirt Trapping Efficiency*"

* "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"

Hmm, so it says on the box for your filter 99% at 25 microns based on the PSL30001? I believe the PL14610 and PL14612 are some of the only pureone's that list the 40 micron rating on the box, most others are 20 micron. I was just trying to see if that difference carried over to the synthetic purolator filter, maybe they aren't testing each filter's efficiency like they do w/ the pureone?
 
Originally Posted By: flstffxe
As a note per the http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx page P1s are rated at "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001" yet the box says "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 40 microns on PL30001"

Makes one wonder, which is correct?


What's listed on the box is most correct. Purolator only has 4 PureOne spin-on filters that are rated 99.9% @ 40 microns.

Purolator does not distinguish these specific 4 filters on their website as having a different rating as shown on the box. Probably too much trouble for them and could confuse people reading the website is probably whey they just put it on the box instead.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: flstffxe
As a note per the http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx page P1s are rated at "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001" yet the box says "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 40 microns on PL30001"

Makes one wonder, which is correct?


What's listed on the box is most correct. Purolator only has 4 PureOne spin-on filters that are rated 99.9% @ 40 microns.

Purolator does not distinguish these specific 4 filters on their website as having a different rating as shown on the box. Probably too much trouble for them and could confuse people reading the website is probably whey they just put it on the box instead.


The issue I see is it is quoted with the same test standard, on the same filter. If it was a different test standard or on a different filter the reason for the difference would make sense.

So is PL30001 99.9% at 20 microns or is it 99.9% at 40? It was the same test, so which is it?
 
Originally Posted By: flstffxe
... As for what you noticed discrepancy wise, may I ask what it/they are?

As has already been pointed out, the 4 smallest P1's (and Classic) are rated at 40um.

Also some of the can thickeness don't seem to jive with advertising and information posted here. The BD+ advertises 2x the burst strength and has generally been considered to have thicker can than P1. Also the Classic thickness greater than both P1 and BD+, doesn't seem right. That said, I've never had an issue with can thickness/failure in all my years of diy, so that's a minor. But, I previously have taken the measure of P1 thickness in inches with the texture but not paint. I'll check the BD+ when I measure after my next OCI on my Honda. All that said, can thickness no biggie to me.

Also, never seen a micron level for the BD+, just 99.9%, which is how the Bosch Premium does it. But, the P1 being clones as shown by river_rats testing, safe to say it is the same as P1. Afaik BD+ is unknown.

And, while the Quaker State filter is similar in construction, afaik it's efficiency is closer to ~93% than the Classic 97.5%. A poster here posted that who uses them and got the info. That said, I've not seen anything authoritative posted to prove it.

Looks like K&N uses a silicone adbv, fairly sure.
 
What filter are you seeing conflicting numbers on? The PL30001 is 99.9% at 20 microns, there are only a few pureones that are 99.9% at 40 microns and it says on the box.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: flstffxe
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: flstffxe
As a note per the http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx page P1s are rated at "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001" yet the box says "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 40 microns on PL30001"

Makes one wonder, which is correct?


What's listed on the box is most correct. Purolator only has 4 PureOne spin-on filters that are rated 99.9% @ 40 microns.

Purolator does not distinguish these specific 4 filters on their website as having a different rating as shown on the box. Probably too much trouble for them and could confuse people reading the website is probably whey they just put it on the box instead.


The issue I see is it is quoted with the same test standard, on the same filter. If it was a different test standard or on a different filter the reason for the difference would make sense.

So is PL30001 99.9% at 20 microns or is it 99.9% at 40? It was the same test, so which is it?


The PL30001 is rated at 99.9@ @ 20 microns. Purolator has elected to use the PL30001 for the IOS 4548-12 test. Other manufactures like FRAM will specify which filter(s) the ISO test was preformed on.

For instance, for the XG FRAM it says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency (using FRAM XG3387A and XG8A average) and dirt holding capacity (using XG8A average only) and their leading economy filter equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
http://www.fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_xtended_guard_oil_filter

For the FRAM High Milelager filter is says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to HM8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
http://www.fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_high_mileage_oil_filter

For some reason (and it's still a mystery why), Purolator has "de-rated" their 4 smallest PureOne spin-on filters to 99.9@ @ 40 microns, and the only place you will see this info is on the boxes of those specific 4 filters.
 
^^ Thank you for the reply.

As far as can thickness goes. I am a Swiss machinist by trade. All thicknesses have been measured with a calibrated point mic(to minimize the influence of paint, texture, cut or curve of the can) in 4 locations 90° from each other and then the average is used.

The Bosch does D+ has a base plate that is about twice as thick as any of the other Bosch/Purolators. I suspect it is the crimp that joins the base plate to the can that fails. The thicker base plate may influence the burst pressure.

Bosch has been changed to 99.9% at ?

QS efficiency has been changed to "unknown"

K&N ADBV has been corrected.

Thanks again, it really is much appreciated. It is a copy and paste format and easy to accidentally skip over an item... It's good to get the proof read
 
Originally Posted By: flstffxe

Bosch has been changed to 99.9% at ?


Yeah, it's strange that Bosch doesn't associate a micron number with that 99.9%. Wonder is it's worse than the PureOne, and that's why they don't show it?
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: flstffxe
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: flstffxe
As a note per the http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx page P1s are rated at "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001" yet the box says "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 40 microns on PL30001"

Makes one wonder, which is correct?


What's listed on the box is most correct. Purolator only has 4 PureOne spin-on filters that are rated 99.9% @ 40 microns.

Purolator does not distinguish these specific 4 filters on their website as having a different rating as shown on the box. Probably too much trouble for them and could confuse people reading the website is probably whey they just put it on the box instead.


The issue I see is it is quoted with the same test standard, on the same filter. If it was a different test standard or on a different filter the reason for the difference would make sense.

So is PL30001 99.9% at 20 microns or is it 99.9% at 40? It was the same test, so which is it?


The PL30001 is rated at 99.9@ @ 20 microns. Purolator has elected to use the PL30001 for the IOS 4548-12 test. Other manufactures like FRAM will specify which filter(s) the ISO test was preformed on.

For instance, for the XG FRAM it says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency (using FRAM XG3387A and XG8A average) and dirt holding capacity (using XG8A average only) and their leading economy filter equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."

http://www.fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_xtended_guard_oil_filter

For some reason (and it's still a mystery why), Purolator has "de-rated" their 4 smallest PureOne spin-on filters to 99.9@ @ 40 microns, and the only place you will see this info is on the boxes of those specific 4 filters.


By using(quoting) the same test on the same filter at two different micron sizes the credibility is lost IMHO, as now you have the PL30001 rated at 2 different levels.

Did you know 2 + 2 = 4
Did you also know 2 + 2 = 8 because we said so.

You can't quote the same equation and give a different answer because it by default makes the equation suspect discrediting any results.
 
There is no monkey business going on. The test is carried out using a known dust that contains a range of particle sizes. In this case it is ISO 12103-1, A3(Medium).

It contains known percentages at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 120 microns. A company can run a single ISO 4548-12 test on a filter and derive the efficiency at any of the defined micron sizes.

http://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-history/iso-standard.php

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: flstffxe
By using(quoting) the same test on the same filter at two different micron sizes the credibility is lost IMHO, as now you have the PL30001 rated at 2 different levels.


The PL30001 is not "rated at 2 different levels".

Purolator's website says:
"Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001"

Which simply means that they used the PL30001 in the ISO 4548-12 test. They have used this as their baseline efficiency rating for all the PureOne filters except for the 4 spin-on filters that are rated at 40 microns.

You're reading way more into it then it's meant to represent.
 
99.9% @ 40 micron and 99% at 20 micron isn't necessarily wrong, though. lol

If you are 99% at 20 micron, it's sure going to be higher the larger the size. Doubt you can get absolute 100%??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
New Purolator synthetic oil filters
Replies
9
Views
4K
dlundblad
C
  • Locked
The real deal - FRAM from their test lab with pic
2 3
Replies
55
Views
24K
ZeeOSix
P
  • Locked
5 filters cut open
Replies
8
Views
10K
Texan4Life
C
  • Locked
Valvoline vs PureONE filters
Replies
11
Views
4K
sprintman
G
  • Locked
FL-820S class filters - Sept. 2006
Replies
8
Views
10K
glenncof
Back
Top Bottom