Carlostrece
$100 Site Donor 2025
I emailed Purolator weeks ago asking for a data sheet. They politely responded today in perfect English telling me to read their website. i.e. - they used their perfect English to tell me to kick rocks.
Pentius PLXL 7317 Initial Impressions vs Microgard Select
- Thread starter Glenda W.
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 526
I got responses quickly and the data sheet numbers. Every filter I asked about, Boss 46 microns. Others were asking too I’m sure, then the president was called, not by me, because website said 99+%@ 25. website changed to 46 microns.
So by now everything has hit the fan, and they tell you to see the website.
They emailed me spec sheets the same day. I suspect the president may be upset…
Should try again and see what happens. Must be a company wide alert to ban Spec Sheets to the public now.
Thanks for the Pentius PLXL7317 measurements. Would you know if the Premium Guard filters are the identical size as the Pentius filters?
Also, a 2nd question, I received the 2 cases of Pentius PLXL7317 oil filter 12 packs from Amazon. I noticed the filters don't have a petroleum smell like the Fram ones. Would the Pentius filters be more prone to rust in storage since they don't have the oily coating from the factory?
Same size as my Microgard Select so I’d imagine same as PG too. I keep mine in a dry temperature controlled place. With the plastic cover I’m hoping they won’t rust. I’ll let you know if I see anything. So far so good.
What’s your initial impressions? Quality look good to you?
Different methods have different propensity to generate burrs and/or debris.
This is why most fleet guard fuel filters have plastic center tubes now. Metal tubes a really hard to make meet stringent cleanliness standards.
The key verbiage 99% @ 20 microns and look at those nice big round holes in the inner tube!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 526
No internal spec sheets, just internet site and box writing. Sometimes it’s just what an auto store says. I think it’s micom looking at it closer. 20 micoms.
Purolator Boss selling hotly on Amazon with buyers reading stated efficiency 99+%@25 microns, with the exact name of the test used.
By buyers who haven't seen the updated Purolator website or seen the "spec sheets" or dozens of BITOG threads about the subject matter.
Stop the BS make them all put the efficiency on every box @ 20 microns.By buyers who haven't seen the updated Purolator website or seen the "spec sheets" or dozens of BITOG threads about the subject matter.
Not a fan of made in Korea/China etc. but the silicon gaskets and center tube holes are nice.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 526
The site on Amazon is the Purolator store, not Amazon’s interpretation.By buyers who haven't seen the updated Purolator website or seen the "spec sheets" or dozens of BITOG threads about the subject matter.
Somewhere in the factory, someone technical tested the filters and recorded what we have seen on the websites. It didn’t appear out of thin air.
I cut it open here.
Pentius PLXL 7317 99%@20 microns 10,000 mile filter. Very well built. Almost if not identical to PG built XL filters.
Guess you missed the whole thread about the president of M+H verifying that the Boss spec sheets were correct. And Purolator's website now reflects the spec sheet. Just because misinformation is on Amazon's website for the Purolator store doesn't mean it's correct, because it's not ... it's been over-ridden by M+H and now by Purolator's own website. Where you been ... you were probably also posting in those threads. "Somewhere in the factory, someone technically tested the filters" ...
That's not been my professional experience supporting fuel filter development. Real world efficiency decreases with what's called "face velocity." More velocity through the filter, less efficiency. I'd need to recheck the ISO filter test standard, but I seem to recall it has no specified flow rate nor flow rate per unit area (it's up to each filter mfg to figure their own test points). This is a major shortcoming IMO of the ISO test procedure that precludes comparison from one filter to another-- they might have the same efficiency ratings, but at wildly different flow rates.
If you want to calculate face velocity, it's just flow rate per unit media area. More specifically, it's "Wetted area" that sees flow. Slower is better. Slower face velocity gives not only higher effective efficiency, it can improve the amount of filtered fluid before hitting a terminal restriction limit.
disregard, saw the C&P.
Last edited:
I did. See post #96 with link to the c&p thread.