Pentius PLXL 7317 Initial Impressions vs Microgard Select

[DannyM]

maybe i am fetching a bit but since microgard is 25 micron and 99%, maybe we can assume or hypothesize that the pentius is closer to that number rather then closer to the lower 20 micron that pentius seems to say

The Pentius XL whipcity close up looks about like the American companies claiming a similar efficiency like the Mobil 1, Fram Tough Guard and Champ XL so it could very well be accurate. The Vietnam factory AFI that makes most of the Premium Guard extended life filters has the most dense looking material that I have seen which are the Microgard Select, Carquest Premium Blue and Napa Gold below.

The basic econo models below which are the Fram Extra , Carquest Red and Pentius PBL look sort of like the Mann and Mahle

 

[Vorlauf]

Doesn't list efficiency on their website for the air or fuel filters other than they meet or exceed OEM quality. The media feels just like any other microgard or fram air filter I've purchased in the past.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Flow and efficiency are 2 different topics. The Pentius is marketed as an ultra flow filter, allowing more flow which is better.

Even if one filter is a bit more "flow restrictive" than the other, it doesn't necessarily mean that any meaningful less oil flow will be getting to the oiling system. The purpose of using a positive displacement oil pump helps ensure that. And besides, when the oil is hot there's typically only a +/- 2 or so PSI difference in dP between oil filters - that's even seen in BR's dP vs flow tests. And as we have seen, it's entirely possible to have a very high efficiency filter that has relatively low dP vs flow. The OG Ultra for instance was one good example (and others), and was verified to be both high efficiency and high flow in Ascents ISO testing.

Post in thread 'Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?'

Jan 24, 2021

This is great information to add to oil filters, should help with “my fitter no good it restricts the flow.”

It's pretty much been know for many moons that the difference in delta-p with hot oil isn't going to be that much different between main stream oil filters. As far as no-name odd ball oil filters ... who knows, but I'd think there would be a lot more variation with some of those filters.

50 L/min = 13.2 GPM ... most high performance street cars don't flow anywhere near 13 GPM, even at redline RPM.

300 in-H2O = 10.8 PSI
350 in-H2O = 12.6 PSI
400 in-H2O = 14.4 PSI
450 in-H2O...

• ZeeOSix

• 

 

[Bill7]

Even if one filter is a bit more "flow restrictive" than the other, it doesn't necessarily mean that any meaningful less oil flow will be getting to the oiling system. The purpose of using a positive displacement oil pump helps ensure that. And besides, when the oil is hot there's typically only a +/- 2 or so PSI difference in dP between oil filters - that's even seen in BR's dP vs flow tests. And as we have seen, it's entirely possible to have a very high efficiency filter that has relatively low dP vs flow. The OG Ultra for instance was one good example (and others), and was verified to be both high efficiency and high flow in Ascents ISO testing.

Post in thread 'Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?'

Jan 24, 2021

This is great information to add to oil filters, should help with “my fitter no good it restricts the flow.”

It's pretty much been know for many moons that the difference in delta-p with hot oil isn't going to be that much different between main stream oil filters. As far as no-name odd ball oil filters ... who knows, but I'd think there would be a lot more variation with some of those filters.

50 L/min = 13.2 GPM ... most high performance street cars don't flow anywhere near 13 GPM, even at redline RPM.

300 in-H2O = 10.8 PSI
350 in-H2O = 12.6 PSI
400 in-H2O = 14.4 PSI
450 in-H2O...

• ZeeOSix

• 

Thanks for that insight. In your opinion, does the post above about more light going through the Pentius PLXL filter than the Microguard Select filter imply that the Pentius PLXL has lower efficiency than the Microguard Select?

 

[Bill7]

The Pentius XL whipcity close up looks about like the American companies claiming a similar efficiency like the Mobil 1, Fram Tough Guard and Champ XL so it could very well be accurate. The Vietnam factory AFI that makes most of the Premium Guard extended life filters has the most dense looking material that I have seen which are the Microgard Select, Carquest Premium Blue and Napa Gold below.

The basic econo models below which are the Fram Extra , Carquest Red and Pentius PBL look sort of like the Mann and Mahle
View attachment 257514
View attachment 257515View attachment 257521View attachment 257522View attachment 257523View attachment 257524View attachment 257526

Please let’s know the Super Tech model that was included in the screen image above

 

[DannyM]

Please let’s know the Super Tech model that was included in the screen image above

that is a Champ XL labeled as Supertech MP with blue paint. I think they mostly discontinued that supertech model fwir.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Thanks for that insight. In your opinion, does the post above about more light going through the Pentius PLXL filter than the Microguard Select filter imply that the Pentius PLXL has lower efficiency than the Microguard Select?

Hard to say between those two. You are not going to tell the difference between 99% @ 20u vs 99% @ 25u by looking at media shots like those - you need an ISO 4548-12 test. I don't see any big holes of light in either, like seen in others like the Boss, Mann and Carquest Red.

 

[Fair enough]

Flow and efficiency are 2 different topics. The Pentius is marketed as an ultra flow filter, allowing more flow which is better.
So the extra light might mean that the Pentius will have more flow pressure than the Microgard select which is an advantage for Pentius filters.

Efficiency is independent of flow. Pentius explicitly mentions it's efficiency is 99% @ > 20 microns. I trust this company.

It more of a cultural thing. South Korea as a culture seems to believe that building the best product is the way to expand a business.
I've seen this in the Hankook 90,000 mile warrantied tires that I purchased. Consumer Reports did a test on them at their Texas track and estimated 85,000 mile real world tread life, which is great. Also the Kumho tires warranty and estimated tire life by Consumer reports are about the same. Both tires are made in South Korea. The point I'm trying to make here is that I trust South Korean companies. Also, LG is a South Korean company, and they make the most reliable home appliances (ex: washers, dryers, stoves, refrigerators) according to Consumer Reports.

Hankook makes tires in Tennessee, I think the 90,000 one, Kinergy PT.
On the microscope pics, it is a very small area being viewed. Is it good to pick the most blocked out one as best at filtering? Not sure about that.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I'd say the media with the big air gaps/holes in the image are not very efficient. Look at the PBL (Purolator Boss) example ... anyone thinking that media is as efficient as one that's 99% @ 20u (like the BR testing shows) is fooling themselves. It would seem to correlate better with the official M+H Spec Sheet showing 99% >46u.

 

[twX]

Even if one filter is a bit more "flow restrictive" than the other, it doesn't necessarily mean that any meaningful less oil flow will be getting to the oiling system. The purpose of using a positive displacement oil pump helps ensure that. And besides, when the oil is hot there's typically only a +/- 2 or so PSI difference in dP between oil filters - that's even seen in BR's dP vs flow tests. And as we have seen, it's entirely possible to have a very high efficiency filter that has relatively low dP vs flow. The OG Ultra for instance was one good example (and others), and was verified to be both high efficiency and high flow in Ascents ISO testing.

Post in thread 'Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?'

Jan 24, 2021

This is great information to add to oil filters, should help with “my fitter no good it restricts the flow.”

It's pretty much been know for many moons that the difference in delta-p with hot oil isn't going to be that much different between main stream oil filters. As far as no-name odd ball oil filters ... who knows, but I'd think there would be a lot more variation with some of those filters.

50 L/min = 13.2 GPM ... most high performance street cars don't flow anywhere near 13 GPM, even at redline RPM.

300 in-H2O = 10.8 PSI
350 in-H2O = 12.6 PSI
400 in-H2O = 14.4 PSI
450 in-H2O...

• ZeeOSix

• 

This is getting a bit off topic for the thread, but I've noticed something interesting about the dP testing done by both Ascent and Brand Ranks. Both of these tests seem to greatly overestimate the filter dP at high flow rates.

The reason for this seems to be that there is a lot of dP across the piping and filter head in these tests, predominantly at higher flow rates.

Ascent's test wasn't an actual ISO 4548-1 dP test. It was an ISO 4548-12 efficiency test with some bonus dP measurements. The ISO 4548-1 test requires a special filter head designed to allow the pressure sensors to be located almost directly at the inlet and outlet of the filter. Ascent used a regular filter head with small diameter piping and connections. This restricive setup is required for the ISO efficiency test in order to induce turbulent flow for better particle mixing, but that turbulent flow will also result in a large pressure drop at high flow rates. The Brand Ranks setup isn't all that accurate either, but it seems to be a bit better than Ascent test.

Here's a chart showing a comparison of an actual ISO 4548-1 dP test (the one that was shared by a Purolator engineer that you've posted before), and the Ascent and BR tests. The curves were scaled a bit so that they all match at 3 GPM, in order to better compare the shapes of the curves, and the Ascent and BR curves were extrapolated for flow rates above 13 and 10 GPM respectively. These filters aren't the exact same model, but the shapes of the curves should be expected to be similar, and if anything, the larger Purolator BOSS filters tested by Ascent and BR should be less restrictive at high flow rates.

The PL14006 tested by Purolator has a much more linear curve, since it isn't measuring all the dP caused by turbulent flow through the test piping and filter head. I've separated the linear portion of the dP curve from the quadratic portion in the chart. The linear portion should mostly represent the dP of the filter media, while the quadratic portion of it should mostly be from the filter canister (and probably a small amount from a portion of the filter head).

In the Ascent and BR tests, at high flow rates, the quadratic portion of the dP curve is 5 times higher than it is in the proper ISO test done by Purolator, and that additional dP is from the test setup, not the filter canister or media.

 

[Fair enough]

From whip city



Purolator says the Boss is 99+%@25 microns on their website. The internal sheet passed around, which says not for distribution I believe, says >46 microns. What this internal sheet was for st the time I don’t think anyone knows. Whatever it is, Purolator states otherwise now, 2024, in writing. Just like people jump to believe auto store Oreilly when they write something, only this is better than that. The source. So I take the for public use USA website where the filters are made,
Companies order or make media, it can change. Years later it doesn’t have to be the same.
I have no love for Purolator. I was all set with the Fram Ultra, and have one on a car now and one more original good one for another vehicle. Then the first brands train wreck.
I also like that Purolator uses a poly fiber rather than glass. I read that on this site.
So that is off my chest as don’t agree with some comments.

The reason for video was to show the Boss media picture looks very good. Not a hole seen.

 

[ZeeOSix]

This is getting a bit off topic for the thread, but I've noticed something interesting about the dP testing done by both Ascent and Brand Ranks. Both of these tests seem to greatly overestimate the filter dP at high flow rates.

The reason for this seems to be that there is a lot of dP across the piping and filter head in these tests, predominantly at higher flow rates.

Ascent's test wasn't an actual ISO 4548-1 dP test. It was an ISO 4548-12 efficiency test with some bonus dP measurements. The ISO 4548-1 test requires a special filter head designed to allow the pressure sensors to be located almost directly at the inlet and outlet of the filter. Ascent used a regular filter head with small diameter piping and connections. This restricive setup is required for the ISO efficiency test in order to induce turbulent flow for better particle mixing, but that turbulent flow will also result in a large pressure drop at high flow rates. The Brand Ranks setup isn't all that accurate either, but it seems to be a bit better than Ascent test.

Here's a chart showing a comparison of an actual ISO 4548-1 dP test (the one that was shared by a Purolator engineer that you've posted before), and the Ascent and BR tests. The curves were scaled a bit so that they all match at 3 GPM, in order to better compare the shapes of the curves, and the Ascent and BR curves were extrapolated for flow rates above 13 and 10 GPM respectively. These filters aren't the exact same model, but the shapes of the curves should be expected to be similar, and if anything, the larger Purolator BOSS filters tested by Ascent and BR should be less restrictive at high flow rates.

The PL14006 tested by Purolator has a much more linear curve, since it isn't measuring all the dP caused by turbulent flow through the test piping and filter head. I've separated the linear portion of the dP curve from the quadratic portion in the chart. The linear portion should mostly represent the dP of the filter media, while the quadratic portion of it should mostly be from the filter canister (and probably a small amount from a portion of the filter head).

In the Ascent and BR tests, at high flow rates, the quadratic portion of the dP curve is 5 times higher than it is in the proper ISO test done by Purolator, and that additional dP is from the test setup, not the filter canister or media.

Andrew said in the video in the testing thread that the dP vs flow test was done per ISO 4548-1. Says it at time 0:21 (link below). The headers on the reports in the video also show ISO 4548-1.

A

Post in thread 'Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?'

Jan 24, 2021

• Ascent Filtration Testing

• 
• 

I don't think Purolator said what ISO test standard was used in their dP vs flow test of the Purolator PL14006. Guess it could be assumed they used ISO 4548-1 ... or maybe not.

It would be interesting if Ascent would have done a dP vs flow baseline of the piping and filter mount apparatus to characterize it between the differential pressure monitoring sensors - maybe he did (?) If it was significant, it could be subtracted from the actual runs. I haven't looked at ISO 4548-1 ... maybe that's part of the test system setup? BR could do the same with their dP vs flow testing to see if there is some significant system baseline dP vs flow without the filter installed that could be subtract out of the actual filter run.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Purolator says the Boss is 99+%@25 microns on their website. The internal sheet passed around, which says not for distribution I believe, says >46 microns. What this internal sheet was for st the time I don’t think anyone knows. Whatever it is, Purolator states otherwise now, 2024, in writing. Just like people jump to believe auto store Oreilly when they write something, only this is better than that. The source. So I take the for public use USA website where the filters are made,

Purolator made the same claim of efficiency on the PBL30001 on their website when Ascent did his ISO 4548-12 test on a smaller Boss filter. It wasn't near 99% @ 25u. And the Spec Sheet for the PBL30001 Boss shows 99% >46u. WCW media zoom shots shows the Boss media to be Swiss cheese.

The M+H Spec Sheet doesn't say for internal use, it says "Only for technical information" on the left boarder of the page ... I just looked at one. They wouldn't send those Spec Sheets to anyone if it was for internal use only. They will send you one now if you ask for it.

 

[twX]

Andrew said in the video in the testing thread that the dP vs flow test was done per ISO 4548-1. Says it at time 0:21 (link below). The headers on the reports in the video also show ISO 4548-1.

Yes, I remember seeing "ISO 4548-1" on some of the test sheets he posted, but I don't think the test was exactly to that standard.

An ISO 4548-1 test has a filter head that looks like this. The pressure taps are located within the filter head itself. The outlet tap can even optionally extend up into the outlet hole of the filter through a tube for an even more accurate measurement.

From the video, it looks like Ascent's pressure taps are in the piping, not the filter head. I'm going by memory here, as I looked into this a while ago, but in the original thread, he discussed the possibility of using a filter head with integrated pressure taps, but settled on a regular filter head with 1/2" NPT connections.

I don't think Purolator said what ISO test standard was used in their dP vs flow test of the Purolator PL14006. Guess it could be assumed they used ISO 4548-1 ... or maybe not.

AFAIK, they didn't say what standard they used. I'm assuming it was a ISO 4548-1. The low dP seems to support this.

I've done some dP estimations of the PL14006 filter canister based on the sizes of its inlet, outlet, and centre tube holes, and the result is fairly close to the estimated canister dP from the chart I posted.

I've also found dp-flow curves for some Donaldson filter heads with 1/2" NPT connections that may perform similarly to the filter head that Ascent used. Their dP is 11 to 12 psi dP at 18 GPM (albeit at, I think, 24 or 30 cST), which lines up pretty well with the difference in dP between the Ascent test and the Purolator test.

It would be interesting if Ascent would have done a dP vs flow baseline of the piping and filter mount apparatus to characterize it between the differential pressure monitoring sensors - maybe he did (?) If it was significant, it could be subtracted from the actual runs. I haven't looked at ISO 4548-1 ... maybe that's part of the test system setup? BR could do the same with their dP vs flow testing to see if there is some significant system baseline dP vs flow without the filter installed that could be subtract out of the actual filter run.

Ascent didn't mention doing any baseline dP measurement, but it would have been a good idea. I doubt that he did one, since it wasn't mentioned, and it would involve using a custom filter canister or something.

In the equivalent ISO standard for hydraulic filters, this method is specifically mentioned. For cartridge style filters, the test can be performed with the filter element installed, and then with only the housing. Subtracting the two test results provides the dP of the filter element and the dP of the housing separately (with the dP of the filter head assumed to be negligible).

I've had the same thought regarding the BR test. They could get some proper baseline measurements by testing an empty filter canister with large inlet holes.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Here's a chart showing a comparison of an actual ISO 4548-1 dP test (the one that was shared by a Purolator engineer that you've posted before), and the Ascent and BR tests. The curves were scaled a bit so that they all match at 3 GPM, in order to better compare the shapes of the curves, and the Ascent and BR curves were extrapolated for flow rates above 13 and 10 GPM respectively. These filters aren't the exact same model, but the shapes of the curves should be expected to be similar, and if anything, the larger Purolator BOSS filters tested by Ascent and BR should be less restrictive at high flow rates.

View attachment 257585

I forgot to mention that the dP vs flow data Purolator did on the PL14006 was with oil at 11.3 cSt viscosity. I believe BR used an oil with 15 cSt and Ascent shows 13.5 cSt on the test data sheets. So if the PL14006 was at 15 cSt the dP vs flow curve would move up some on the graph.

 

[Glenda W.]

From whip city



Purolator says the Boss is 99+%@25 microns on their website. The internal sheet passed around, which says not for distribution I believe, says >46 microns. What this internal sheet was for st the time I don’t think anyone knows. Whatever it is, Purolator states otherwise now, 2024, in writing. Just like people jump to believe auto store Oreilly when they write something, only this is better than that. The source. So I take the for public use USA website where the filters are made,
Companies order or make media, it can change. Years later it doesn’t have to be the same.
I have no love for Purolator. I was all set with the Fram Ultra, and have one on a car now and one more original good one for another vehicle. Then the first brands train wreck.
I also like that Purolator uses a poly fiber rather than glass. I read that on this site.
So that is off my chest as don’t agree with some comments.

The reason for video was to show the Boss media picture looks very good. Not a hole seen.

If you’re comfortable with the price and the louvers are open, run the Boss. Plenty of OEM filters with similar efficiency out there. The Boss is made in the USA but M+H is a German company, Pentius is a USA company but the filters are made in Korea.

 

[Fair enough]

If you’re comfortable with the price and the louvers are open, run the Boss. Plenty of OEM filters with similar efficiency out there. The Boss is made in the USA but M+H is a German company, Pentius is a USA company but the filters are made in Korea.

Comfortable since want USA on the can, where it’s made by USA workers. Been looking at the louvers for a long time and returned a couple over the years.
I fall victim to overseas buying as much as anyone but try to draw the line when I can. I don’t mind buying a German car, but definitely not buying a Chinese car. But Purolator is not made in Germany anyway. Vietnam is a solid no.
The Boss is 99+%@25 microns and the One 99%@20. I do stick to that, others can stick to what they want. The USA site in 2024 states it, and the test used. WCW compared Boss to XP, neither had holes in the media.
I got the Last Boss for $11, and the One for $7, last year. Fresh dated.

 

[twX]

I forgot to mention that the dP vs flow data Purolator did on the PL14006 was with oil at 11.3 cSt viscosity. I believe BR used an oil with 15 cSt and Ascent shows 13.5 cSt on the test data sheets. So if the PL14006 was at 15 cSt the dP vs flow curve would move up some on the graph.

Keep in mind that these curves are already scaled a bit so that they all intersect at 3 GPM. Otherwise the BR curve would be ~10% lower, and the Ascent curve would be ~8% higher than shown. I actually adjusted the BR and Ascent data in direct proportion to the viscosity, but this makes no difference to the final result on the chart, since they're scaled to match at 3 GPM afterwards anyway. The chart is meant to show the differences in the shapes of the curves, not accurate dP values.

The dP across the media should be directly proportional to the viscosity, but the rest of the dP is largely caused by turbulent flow. This dP shouldn't change much with viscosity, since the turbulence increases as the viscosity decreases.

Had the BR and Ascent tests used lower viscosity oil, I'd expect their dP curves to be even less linear, since the filter media dP would drop in proportion to viscosity, but the rest of the dP from the turbulent flow through the canister and the test setup wouldn't change much. The larger BOSS filters should have less media restriction though, which would have the opposite effect. I'd say it's a wash.

BTW, here's a chart that includes my pressure drop calculations for the PL14006 canister based on the sizes of its inlet and centre tube holes. Most of the quadratic part of Purolator's dP curve can be explained by the dP from these parts of the canister. The outlet hole dP isn't shown, but it might also contribute, depending on which of the two outlet pressure connections Purolator used. If there's any dP caused by the test setup, it seems to be very low.

The Purolator BOSS filters tested by Ascent and BR filters should have very similar canister restriction to the PL14006, so that doesn't seem to be a factor.

 

[Carlostrece]

Flow and efficiency are 2 different topics. The Pentius is marketed as an ultra flow filter, allowing more flow which is better.
So the extra light might mean that the Pentius will have more flow pressure than the Microgard select which is an advantage for Pentius filters.

Efficiency is independent of flow. Pentius explicitly mentions it's efficiency is 99% @ > 20 microns. I trust this company.

It more of a cultural thing. South Korea as a culture seems to believe that building the best product is the way to expand a business.
I've seen this in the Hankook 90,000 mile warrantied tires that I purchased. Consumer Reports did a test on them at their Texas track and estimated 85,000 mile real world tread life, which is great. Also the Kumho tires warranty and estimated tire life by Consumer reports are about the same. Both tires are made in South Korea. The point I'm trying to make here is that I trust South Korean companies. Also, LG is a South Korean company, and they make the most reliable home appliances (ex: washers, dryers, stoves, refrigerators) according to Consumer Reports.

I completely agree that South Koreans make their products with pride and are consciensious about trying to do good work. It's a matter of personal pride and self respect to them. It's a matter of honor to them. Same with Japan. I don't know if that's the case in Vietnam, but it appears to me that they're trying very hard to do good work.

China is a different situation entirely where they sometimes don't care about quality or reputation. Probably because they're oppressed by their gov.

My Hankook (S Korean) tires are the best I've ever owned. Coopers (USA) were also good for me, but Hankook are next level quality and good price. I've owned Goodyear and BFG (both USA) and they were OK. I owned General (USA) and they were garbage (not even round when new). Though I did own another set of Generals that were OK. I've owned Kenda (Japanese) that were good. I've owned CST (China) that are OK.

In my experience, S Korean, Japanese, and some USA companies make the best products.

 

[Carlostrece]

I've tried many times ... never any kind of response. Customer support is non-existent.

I emailed Purolator weeks ago to ask for data sheets for a specific model of Purolator One that fits my car. Today I received an email reply from Purolator telling me to read their website.

I read their website weeks ago. It doesn't have any links to data sheets that I could find.

I think all the filter brands think of the DIY public as nuisance peons, if they think of us at all.