Pureone 22500 cut open

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
I'd rather use a Wix/Napa Gold or Fram TG for about the same cost and not have to change a filter half way through an OCI.


Once I get my UOA back from Blackstone and decide how long I feel comfortable running my oil, I will stay with a synthetic media filter. This is the process of breaking away from the 3k miles OCI. This time I went 5k. That is progress!


Indeed it is. I hope we start seeing more and more of these filters without tears, so I can go back to using Bosch Premiums on our Subaru. It and the P1 version seem to be the only full size filters with the proper bypass for the Subaru and they looked great after 10K miles. Expect the last one that was torn.

 

[Pajamarama]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Can we have a spread sheet of Purolator branded filters that did not show any signs of failure? Just curious. We could compare one set of data against the other and then figure out (percentage wise) how widespread the problem really is?

It's a lot less interesting when something turns out to be fine rather than when it shows problems. People remember -- and apparently, keep track of in a spreadsheet -- failures and forget about or ignore instances where nothing was wrong.

My opinion: this whole thing with BITOG freaking out about Purolator filter tears reeks of confirmation bias. Someone sees a tear, posts about it, everyone goes crazy and starts cutting Purolator filters left and right. If you cut more Purolator filters than other brands sure you're going to find more problems than with other brands.

When I first started posting here, the herd mentality was "FRAM sucks". Now Purolator is the scapegoat. Show me your torn filter and accompanying UOA showing factual damage to the oil or engine as a result and I'll believe you. Until then, I'll keep using my PureOnes since they seem to be doing a fine job in my engines.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kozanoglu
Yes, the fad is Fram Ultra now, who knows what the new fad will be next. Currently there is an anti purolator hysteria. Man-made.


I imagine if a filter that would perform better, be constructed better, go longer OCI and cost less than the Ultra, then it too would become the "new fad" filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kozanoglu
None of it was verified independently, just claims. Who is to say the filter media is not tampered with after and or during cutting phase?


So you are saying that all the reported Purolator media tears reported here were "fabricated"? I don't believe that for a second. If you were reading all the postings over the last 4~5 months on this forum you'd know why.

 

[DoubleWasp]

In any market, people are going to gravitate toward new and better products. That's why you don't see people still talking on Motorola StarTacs instead of iPhones. Fram picked up the pace, and Purolator dropped the ball.

Times change. First time I came on BITOG and saw that Pennzoil and Quaker are now good oils, that prevent and clean sludge, instead of being the primary creators of it, I was a little taken back, but stranger stuff has happened.

 

[telecat]

Originally Posted By: Apollo14
Originally Posted By: kozanoglu
Is it verified independently? Yes or no?
Members routinely cut open filters and it was noticed that filters made by Purolator (including Bosch and Motorcraft) were showing up with tears quite often.
Out of how many filters used? How many were used for utterly ludicrous oil and filter change intervals? How may were cut open incorrectly? How many of those engines were warmed up correctly before the spurs were put to them? All are valid and relevant questions, yet, to read some of the folks here, we should treat a couple handfuls of ANECDOTAL reports as if it's the gospel according to Abraham and get that OCOD religion, the shining example and finest use of the scientific method.

I'm tellin' ya, it's like prey fish in the shallows on Tortola. Current changes, fishies follow. Here fishy fishy fishy, wanna buy a $20 oil filter? How about some $50 oil? Over there on BITOG, *they* ALL say it's the bees knees. Maybe some Stop Leak™ or some bacon-flavored automatic transmission fluid, too!

People will believe ANYTHING!

Maple or rosewood?

 

[Apollo14]

Originally Posted By: telecat
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
Originally Posted By: kozanoglu
Is it verified independently? Yes or no?
Members routinely cut open filters and it was noticed that filters made by Purolator (including Bosch and Motorcraft) were showing up with tears quite often.
Out of how many filters used? How many were used for utterly ludicrous oil and filter change intervals? How may were cut open incorrectly? How many of those engines were warmed up correctly before the spurs were put to them? All are valid and relevant questions, yet, to read some of the folks here, we should treat a couple handfuls of ANECDOTAL reports as if it's the gospel according to Abraham and get that OCOD religion, the shining example and finest use of the scientific method.

I'm tellin' ya, it's like prey fish in the shallows on Tortola. Current changes, fishies follow. Here fishy fishy fishy, wanna buy a $20 oil filter? How about some $50 oil? Over there on BITOG, *they* ALL say it's the bees knees. Maybe some Stop Leak™ or some bacon-flavored automatic transmission fluid, too!

People will believe ANYTHING!

Maple or rosewood?


There's a spreadsheet tracking the problems and people have posted pictures of their filters. Have you looked at the spreadsheet to see the mileage on the filters or how many reports there are? Have you reviewed the pictures to see if your assertions have any basis? Have you compared the number of posts with cut open filters that are ok with the number of posts with filters that are not ok?

No, I didn't think so. So much for your scientific method then.

And since you're pulling assertions from your posterior, can you show us proof of people talking about $20 filters and $50 oil? People have talked about going to Fram Toughguards and Ultras which are $6 & $9 respectively. Seeing the Toughguard goes to 10,000 miles and the Ultra goes to 15,000 miles and both are 99% efficient, they have similar performance to the questionable Purolator manufactured filters and are cheaper to run per mile.

One thing is clear, your assertions are completely at odds with what people have discovered. If you can refute people's concerns with valid arguments rather than labeling them "prey fish", then go ahead. Until then, it is clear you are trolling.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ People here have been cutting open Purolators for 10 years ... yet the tearing issue absolutely flourished with multiple reports by members here during the first half of this year. Nothing has changed in the factors except the filters. People all of a sudden didn't start changing their OCI habits or driving all at the same time to have dozens of people find media tears at the same time. That's just plain ridiculous to think that's what is responsible for the media tearing root cause. The cause was sloppy manufacturing that put a large pleat V-spread and wide pleat spacing on the pleats on each side of the seam - that's the cause of tearing, not people's use habits.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
I'd rather use a Wix/Napa Gold or Fram TG for about the same cost and not have to change a filter half way through an OCI.

I'd rather run the Napa Gold I now obtain for $3.70 on sale than either an orange can or a TG. Cost less than either and no concerns about the endcap centertube junction seal. But as noted, ~$4.75 for a PL14610 and others, doesn't seem pricey to me for a 5000 mi oci.

But back on topic, the OP's PL22500 looks like it could have easily done double the fci. And with 99.9%@20um rating, all things considered appears the OP is very satisfied with his choice and result here, even if the purohaters are less than thrilled.

Again to the OP, thanks for posting pics of the PL22500.

 

[KCJeep]

The latest Fram attack is silly. You really think a Tough Guard could achieve a 99% at 20 microns efficiency while bypassing oil through the center tube? Methinks not.

The OP's filter looks good.

 

[Sayjac]

Using that same logic then Pure Ones couldn't achieve the 99.9%@20um rating either. And as linked depending on when filter is tested, new condition, completely covered centertube ends, could well could test as rated.

I don't consider Ed's points an attack or trifle.

 

[NJC]

Originally Posted By: Pajamarama
When I first started posting here, the herd mentality was "FRAM sucks". Now Purolator is the scapegoat. Show me your torn filter and accompanying UOA showing factual damage to the oil or engine as a result and I'll believe you. Until then, I'll keep using my PureOnes since they seem to be doing a fine job in my engines.

I've cut open 2 Bosch 3330 filters - both from same plant as some of the Purolator line - and one of them was torn. My last filter @ 7k km's is here.

Even though that filter did not have tearing, the media was quite weak and IMO prone to failure. I can't and won't support a MFG that makes substandard products. I'd rather pay a bit more and get a more robust product. But I bought the American made Bosch precisely because I DID think it was a quality product.

 

[jk_636]

I understand your point. It is just experience. I have never had a bad experience with anything Purolator, I have never seen any tears, start up noise, damaged ADBV or anything else. I think for the money, they are one of the best out there. I think my filter is evidence of that. But that is just my

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636

This is definetely one the Puro-haters dont want to see

What people are labeling as "Puro-haters" are actually long time Purolator fans and users (me included - just look at past postings since I joined in 2010) that are now disappointing in the failure issue, and also disappointed in how Purolator has responded to the issue. They want to use Purolators, but are moving on to something that doesn't have a high chance of failing. A natural response IMO.


That would describe me. I take no joy in seeing any failed filters.

Next week I'll change out my last running PureOne and cut it. I bet it'll be fine because it's a Mopar application and that model doesn't seem to be among the affected. I'll post it here either way.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636

This is definetely one the Puro-haters dont want to see

What people are labeling as "Puro-haters" are actually long time Purolator fans and users (me included - just look at past postings since I joined in 2010) that are now disappointing in the failure issue, and also disappointed in how Purolator has responded to the issue. They want to use Purolators, but are moving on to something that doesn't have a high chance of failing. A natural response IMO.


That would describe me. I take no joy in seeing any failed filters.

Next week I'll change out my last running PureOne and cut it. I bet it'll be fine because it's a Mopar application and that model doesn't seem to be among the affected. I'll post it here either way.


I still respectfully maintain the position that Purolator doesn't deserve the reputation they have been receiving here over the past few months. Don't get me wrong, there have been failures and we have a great chart of failures, but to be objective and to figure out how widespread the problem really is, we would need a chart of filters that did not tear during the same OCI as well, then compare the results. I haven't had one tear on me, and I personally don't think that there is enough evidence to jump ship but hey, what can I say. Go with your gut and use whatever makes you feel comfortable.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ All I can say is over the last 4+ years I've been here I've seen way more failed/torn media Purolators reported then all the others put together. Says something IMO ... it's not some small isolated case here and there.