Originally Posted By: jk_636
You just cant let it go. Stop hijacking every Purolator thread that comes along. These filters didn't fail.
Threadjacking? You introduced the incorrect idea that the tearing issue was due to excessive mileage. You have done it two or three times now if I remember correctly. Each time you put that idea out just to have it refuted... it is not threadjacking. If you noticed where I enter the conversation until you made unfounded statements claiming that the tearing issue was "user" error.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I still maintain the position that the media is just fine, and that the majority of failures occur because of prolonged service intervals that the filters were
Never designed to handle. "My pureone failed at 10k mile interval".
^^^ This is the comment that sparked it. It was not your old-stock filters. You went from documenting something to asserting something beyond your filter and guess what, someone had images to the contrary. Then you call it threadjacking. YOU introduced it. Not only that, by labeling the first statement "Purohater Beware" you basically served yourself up as a purolaotr fanboy.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
You have nothing to complain about so you come here to stir up problems! I maintain the position that if people would stop running filters for such long intervals that the failures would almost cease to exist.
This is MY filter (below) at 3,700mi. My OTHER one failed by 3000mi.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
And as for old stock, who cares? I purchased them about 6 months ago. Go find somewhere else to stir up problems. Unfortunately, this thread may as well be DOA...
Old stock does not mean that the "tear" issue has been address. It was not DOA once the production codes were noted... just irrelevant unless you are talking about the pre-tearolator days. It was the "all is well" status update on the Titanic.
