oil filter choices for 2007 Honda Ridgeline

[WankelRotorHead]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
You might want to rethink your stance on Puolator and look into their synthetic line. They are really nice filters. Comparable or better than the Fram Ultra


Comparable is a fair assessment based on the information provided on the websites, but suggesting better means you need some substance to back that up...which you haven't provided.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
Originally Posted By: jk_636
You might want to rethink your stance on Puolator and look into their synthetic line. They are really nice filters. Comparable or better than the Fram Ultra


Comparable is a fair assessment based on the information provided on the websites, but suggesting better means you need some substance to back that up...which you haven't provided.



Comparable OR better means that the topic could be argued either way. Im not a huge Fram fan, others may not be huge Purolator fans. They are very comparable though, both wire backed, synthetic media and solid construction.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636
You might want to rethink your stance on Puolator and look into their synthetic line. They are really nice filters. Comparable or better than the Fram Ultra


The Purolator synthetic is a nice filter, but I wouldn't say they are better than the Fram Ultra simply because they don't filter as well (slightly less efficient) and don't hold as much debris (less holding capacity). But for most here, that won't matter much.

again are we? I dont see any information on Frams website that shows they hold more debris.

http://fram.com/oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter.aspx#2

vs

http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636
You might want to rethink your stance on Puolator and look into their synthetic line. They are really nice filters. Comparable or better than the Fram Ultra


The Purolator synthetic is a nice filter, but I wouldn't say they are better than the Fram Ultra simply because they don't filter as well (slightly less efficient) and don't hold as much debris (less holding capacity). But for most here, that won't matter much.

again are we? I dont see any information on Frams website that shows they hold more debris.


If the FU is rated for 15,000 miles then it holds MORE debris than a Purolator Synthetic because they are rated for 10,000 miles. Not rocket science, don't need to read it on a website or on the side of a box.

So again, your statement that the Purolator Synthetic is better than the FU is false for 2 reasons: 1) Efficiency and 2) Holding Capacity.

Anyone who "claims" the Purolator Synthetic has better specs than the FU is either blind or trolling.

They are "comparable" at best, but with the FU obviously on top.

 

[jk_636]

If it was the other way around, and Purolator said they could run 15k and Fram said 10k you would be screaming that manufacturers advertising means nothing without validation. Long story short, you would be right. Just because they claim it can go 5k miles more doesn't mean that:

A) It can
B) It holds any more debris

Its just advertising. At least Purolator tells you how much debris it holds. 27 grams, more than double that of a Pureone. With Fram I suppose your just guessing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
If it was the other way around, and Purolator said they could run 15k and Fram said 10k you would be screaming that manufacturers advertising means nothing without validation. Long story short, you would be right. Just because they claim it can go 5k miles more doesn't mean that:

A) It can
B) It holds any more debris

Its just advertising. At least Purolator tells you how much debris it holds. 27 grams, more than double that of a Pureone. With Fram I suppose your just guessing.


Whatever, the rated mileage is all you can compare ... so people do. If the Purolator synthetic had better specs than the FU I'd point it out. Read my signature line ... I'm a non-biased consumer of products that bases viewpoint on the quality and performance, not a brand name.