Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Quote:
.......I've seen a test that was performed using uniform sized aluminum spheres passed through the filter media, backed by high efficiency filter patches that caught the remainder of the particles. The PureONE did not perform anywhere near the level of the three filters that were using a synthetic microglass media. The Fram Xtended Guard, Royal Purple and Amsoil filters soundly stomped the PureONE in filtering ability.
I've seen that 'so called' test posted here too. That patch "test" result was a bunch of hogwash bullshine to put it mildly. It had the same filters ie., Wix and Napa Gold, and Extra Guard orange can and High Mileage filters show up with very different results.
It's laughable that one would compare some patch particle test done in some random guy's basement posted on the internet, to refute/discredit actual results of testing done in a lab under controlled conditions. river_rat's bench testing here, confirmed the P1 to have excellent filtration and flow characteristics. And unlike the patch 'so called test', his results confirmed similar results with filters known to be similar/same, eg., P1 and Bosch Prem, the Honda filter brands (no endcap type). etc.
The point here wasn't that P1 is better or worse than some synthetic fiber filters, it was the specs posted by here by Purolator.
Now, one can disbelieve the engineeers' at Purolator here, one can even call them liars. But, to point to a psuedo scientific patch test as some kind of proof that a filter doesn't meet the specs posted/published here is a joke.
Regardless of the small inconsistencies between similar/same filters, the test did accurately show that microglass media outperforms even the best conventional media. The quoted specs for microglass filters aren't even as good as what Purolator was claiming for the PureONE, so it would be logical to question them.
"Small inconsistencies"? When the exact same media(s) show extremely different results at least twice in the same procedure, the accuracy of the entire patch psuedo test can only be viewed as highly dubious at best. But, to then attempt to use that internet procedure as some kind of proof that rates given here by Purolator are false is laughable.
As said, you can doubt or question the published/posted results if you choose. Otoh, I'll take the published results of actual testing done under controlled conditons at face value until proven otherwise, the patch procedure isn't that proof.
The best thing about the patch procedure is the quality of the filter dissection pictures, excellent. As for accuracy of the conclusions reached, not so much.