The filtering medium of the Purolator Synthetic looks very much like that used in the Royal Purple oil filters
*New* Purolator Synthetic Filter *Pics*
- Thread starter CarbonCrew
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I see Purolator finally got a web page up on their new synthetic PSL series.
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx
I also see the efficiency rating is at 25 microns instead of 20 microns. See bottom of web page linked above.
"Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
I see Purolator finally got a web page up on their new synthetic PSL series.
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx
I also see the efficiency rating is at 25 microns instead of 20 microns. See bottom of web page linked above.
"Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I see Purolator finally got a web page up on their new synthetic PSL series.
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx
I also see the efficiency rating is at 25 microns instead of 20 microns. See bottom of web page linked above.
"Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I see Purolator finally got a web page up on their new synthetic PSL series.
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx
I also see the efficiency rating is at 25 microns instead of 20 microns. See bottom of web page linked above.
"Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
So all tires are the same because they are made from a licensed product called "rubber". Engines made out of aluminum are all the same because the supplier has his own license for it....got it!
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
So all tires are the same because they are made from a licensed product called "rubber". Engines made out of aluminum are all the same because the supplier has his own license for it....got it!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
So all tires are the same because they are made from a licensed product called "rubber". Engines made out of aluminum are all the same because the supplier has his own license for it....got it!
Your argument makes ZERO sense. YOU stated that Purolator copied FRAM by using wire-backed media. I brought up the FACT that the wire-backed glass media is a Donaldson technology and they have licensed it to other companies over the years.
This means that if Purolator "copied" anybody, it was Donaldson. But they likely just license the technology FROM Donaldson like everybody else does.
And of course the same goes for FRAM.
Using your examples above, your argument is akin to Michelin coming up with a revolutionary way of making tire tread. Goodyear licenses that technology from Michelin for use in their own special series of tires, Toyo follows suit and then somebody makes the statement that Toyo copied Goodyear and then goes off on a tangent when somebody corrects them stating that it is a Michelin technology
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
So all tires are the same because they are made from a licensed product called "rubber". Engines made out of aluminum are all the same because the supplier has his own license for it....got it!
Your argument makes ZERO sense. YOU stated that Purolator copied FRAM by using wire-backed media. I brought up the FACT that the wire-backed glass media is a Donaldson technology and they have licensed it to other companies over the years.
This means that if Purolator "copied" anybody, it was Donaldson. But they likely just license the technology FROM Donaldson like everybody else does.
And of course the same goes for FRAM.
Using your examples above, your argument is akin to Michelin coming up with a revolutionary way of making tire tread. Goodyear licenses that technology from Michelin for use in their own special series of tires, Toyo follows suit and then somebody makes the statement that Toyo copied Goodyear and then goes off on a tangent when somebody corrects them stating that it is a Michelin technology
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
So all tires are the same because they are made from a licensed product called "rubber". Engines made out of aluminum are all the same because the supplier has his own license for it....got it!
Your argument makes ZERO sense. YOU stated that Purolator copied FRAM by using wire-backed media. I brought up the FACT that the wire-backed glass media is a Donaldson technology and they have licensed it to other companies over the years.
This means that if Purolator "copied" anybody, it was Donaldson. But they likely just license the technology FROM Donaldson like everybody else does.
And of course the same goes for FRAM.
Not arguing, will take your word for it. If Fram wasn't first using synthetic media and a screen together for automotive applications, show me the Donaldson's. Will buy them
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
So all tires are the same because they are made from a licensed product called "rubber". Engines made out of aluminum are all the same because the supplier has his own license for it....got it!
Your argument makes ZERO sense. YOU stated that Purolator copied FRAM by using wire-backed media. I brought up the FACT that the wire-backed glass media is a Donaldson technology and they have licensed it to other companies over the years.
This means that if Purolator "copied" anybody, it was Donaldson. But they likely just license the technology FROM Donaldson like everybody else does.
And of course the same goes for FRAM.
Not arguing, will take your word for it. If Fram wasn't first using synthetic media and a screen together for automotive applications, show me the Donaldson's. Will buy them
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Not arguing, will take your word for it. If Fram wasn't first using synthetic media and a screen together for automotive applications, show me the Donaldson's. Will buy them
Donaldson makes a very narrow range of synthetic automotive filters. They only make them directly for Ford and GM small block engines.
Their market is mostly diesel engines, which is what the synthetic, wire-backed media was developed for and for which they have a huge range of filters available.
They've licensed the technology to Fleetguard, who makes these filters under the Stratapore moniker, and to AMSOIL, which had WIX and Donaldson make (and there may be other companies) this style of filter for automotive applications. Other filters like the Delco UPF, Royal Purple, NAPA Platinum, the FRAM XG and of course the Purolator Synthetic filters use this same technology.
http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/support/datalibrary/068312.pdf
And the history:
http://donaldsonoemfiltration.com/customer-service/history-innovation
You'll see Synteq was developed in the 1980's.
Not arguing, will take your word for it. If Fram wasn't first using synthetic media and a screen together for automotive applications, show me the Donaldson's. Will buy them
Donaldson makes a very narrow range of synthetic automotive filters. They only make them directly for Ford and GM small block engines.
Their market is mostly diesel engines, which is what the synthetic, wire-backed media was developed for and for which they have a huge range of filters available.
They've licensed the technology to Fleetguard, who makes these filters under the Stratapore moniker, and to AMSOIL, which had WIX and Donaldson make (and there may be other companies) this style of filter for automotive applications. Other filters like the Delco UPF, Royal Purple, NAPA Platinum, the FRAM XG and of course the Purolator Synthetic filters use this same technology.
http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/support/datalibrary/068312.pdf
And the history:
http://donaldsonoemfiltration.com/customer-service/history-innovation
You'll see Synteq was developed in the 1980's.
got mine. the paint doesnt look that great, but its just paint, get over it.
the fram video used only one filter, it looked like a race ect filter, not the mass production filter at wally world. just my idea.
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
Is it me or are filtering standards getting worse?
The P! WAS at 99.9% @ 20 Microns, Now the Puro synthetic filter media is 99% @ 25 microns. Thats good? How so?
Dusty
They are marketing their new synthetic filter for extended mileage and change intervals, virtually twice that of their PureOne. Those who would use synthetic oil for longivity would/should use a filter able to hold much more contaminates without increasing the size of the filter. This size limitation of the filter requires the filter not to be so micron efficient. I just wonder what that efficiency is at 20 microns? 95%? 92%?
Is it me or are filtering standards getting worse?
The P! WAS at 99.9% @ 20 Microns, Now the Puro synthetic filter media is 99% @ 25 microns. Thats good? How so?
Dusty
They are marketing their new synthetic filter for extended mileage and change intervals, virtually twice that of their PureOne. Those who would use synthetic oil for longivity would/should use a filter able to hold much more contaminates without increasing the size of the filter. This size limitation of the filter requires the filter not to be so micron efficient. I just wonder what that efficiency is at 20 microns? 95%? 92%?
^Probably 95% at least. Lower would be downright shocking. Closer to 97-97% at 20 micron I'd imagine for 'most' of the new Purolator Synthetic.
...and, yes, your general response is right on for why it isn't 'as efficient' as a P1 generally speaking. You got 'GOOD' filtration(not 'adequate') for a long interval.
That said, it's all relative. The tests for the ratings means only so much, really. Each app responds differently to different oil filters, some aren't picky and we are more so for them.
...and, yes, your general response is right on for why it isn't 'as efficient' as a P1 generally speaking. You got 'GOOD' filtration(not 'adequate') for a long interval.
That said, it's all relative. The tests for the ratings means only so much, really. Each app responds differently to different oil filters, some aren't picky and we are more so for them.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I see Purolator finally got a web page up on their new synthetic PSL series.
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx
I also see the efficiency rating is at 25 microns instead of 20 microns. See bottom of web page linked above.
"Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I see Purolator finally got a web page up on their new synthetic PSL series.
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx
I also see the efficiency rating is at 25 microns instead of 20 microns. See bottom of web page linked above.
"Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"
They copied the Fram XG's metal screen and called it a "pleat support system". Purolator copying Fram? Nah, can't be.
You are right, it can't be. The wire-backed media is a Donaldson technology, who licensed it out to everybody else.
Fram Ultra has better efficiency... @ 20 um. Similar construction. We now have two, really good, solid filter choices at very reasonable prices. Both 30-40% less than M1 (which isn't as efficient IIRC), the D+ and the RP. Maybe not quite as efficient as the Amsoil but a whole heap less expensive. Fram is made USA... anyone know about the Puro?
The Fram Ultra states 99% efficiency at >20 microns. That means any size particle 21 micron or larger, which really isnt saying anything particular. The puro synthetic states a specific micron level of filtration 99% @ 25 micron. I wouldn't say the Fram has an higher efficiency because their so vague with that statement. I'm sure it's close to the puro, doubt its better.
the puro is made in the US, it states it on the box and on the filter itself.
the puro is made in the US, it states it on the box and on the filter itself.
So you think 99% @ 20 is worse than 99% @ 25?
Fram states ISO 4548-12 test.. which means it's a very specific specification. BTW, >20 means 20 and above. Several filters equal that. One or two exceed it by a little. Not the Puro Syn. It's a good filter ,and overall I wouldn't quibble over a few microns either way, but the fact is the efficiency IS slightly less than the Ultra.
The only way a thinking person wouldn't at least consider a Fram Ultra is if he had a bias for or against a particular name. That's every individual's choice but it's not very open minded or consumer-smart.
Fram states ISO 4548-12 test.. which means it's a very specific specification. BTW, >20 means 20 and above. Several filters equal that. One or two exceed it by a little. Not the Puro Syn. It's a good filter ,and overall I wouldn't quibble over a few microns either way, but the fact is the efficiency IS slightly less than the Ultra.
The only way a thinking person wouldn't at least consider a Fram Ultra is if he had a bias for or against a particular name. That's every individual's choice but it's not very open minded or consumer-smart.
You could say your filter is 99% efficient @ >20 if it were measured at 30 micron. You could also say your filter is 99% efficient @ >20 micron if it were measured at 50 micron. You could say your filter is 99% efficient @ >20 micron if it were measured at 1,000 micron. All fram is saying is that they took there measurement at a micron level greater than 20. They dont actually specify at which level the measure it at.
The Purolator synthetic filter IS 99% efficient @ >20 micron as well.
The Fram Ultra IS NOT 99% efficient @ 20 micron.
The Purolator synthetic filter IS 99% efficient @ >20 micron as well.
The Fram Ultra IS NOT 99% efficient @ 20 micron.
Last edited:
20.01 microns is >20 microns. Therefore, FRAM could not legally advertise a filter to be 99% efficient at >20 microns without including particles just a hair over 20 microns. For all practical purposes, that means it is basically the same as saying "99% efficient at 20 microns".
I'd get the Purolator Synth filter when they will be on sale + rebate + AAP discounts, otherwise I'm still stocked up on $6 M1's from my previous purchases and at that price, I ain't complaining and could care less what its Micron ratings are. I personally don't like using el cheapo products in my 20-30,000 thousand dollar automobiles.
As for FRAM... bleh, I hate FRAM and stay away from them at all costs regardless of how good they make em now.
As for FRAM... bleh, I hate FRAM and stay away from them at all costs regardless of how good they make em now.
- Status