Purolater boss 46 micron and purolater one 30 micron

[RaRa]

Hello everyone I ask purolater to give efficiency for oil filter for purolater boss Pbl10241 and pl14610 I read attached as read it say 99% 30 micron pl14610
And I read >46 micron pbl 10241 so it way off it looks like purolater is using best quality filter for testing to get 25micron for boss and 20 micron for pure one as oil filter .

 

[fantastic]

Very interesting, I agree if they are claiming 99%@25 then they aren't being transparent about their overall avg of the boss line of filters.

 

[RaRa]

Before I read here that pl10241 was 25 micron at 99% 2021 so purolater go backward now it 30 micron at 99% then rated oil filter for 15,000 miles.

 

[RaRa]

Very interesting, I agree if they are claiming 99%@25 then they aren't being honest about their overall avg of the boss line of filters.

they not even honest or clear about pure one because it still say 20 micron at 99%. I know it base on PL30001 with *.

 

[blufeb95]

I think there was a revision to the Purolator Boss in the last few years, the old ones were super low efficiency similar to the Wix XP and then they upgraded the media to one that was 99% efficient at 25 microns.

 

[RaRa]

I think there was a revision to the Purolator Boss in the last few years, the old ones were super low efficiency similar to the Wix XP and then they upgraded the media to one that was 99% efficient at 25 microns.

I have get this spec email today they all print on or after April 2022 which on spec sheet I have attached boss one on December 2022 .

 

[blufeb95]

I went an found the Ascent testing from 2021, and their testing showed around 87-88% at 25 Microns and absolute efficiency closer to 35 mircons.

 

[ZeeOSix]

they not even honest or clear about pure one because it still say 20 micron at 99%. I know it base on PL30001 with *.

The PL30001 probably is 99% @ 20μ if Purolator makes that claim. There's a reason they use the largest filter possible. I've pointed out many times that the size of the filter can impact the ISO efficiency test results. Sidenote - the 4 smallest PureOne spin-on filters were rated at 99% @ 40μ, so that gives an idea how size can effect the measured efficiency, compared to the huge 30001 spin-on.

Fram's ISO 4548-12 efficiency is the average of 3 different sized filters, so a better representation.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Very interesting, I agree if they are claiming 99%@25 then they aren't being transparent about their overall avg of the boss line of filters.

They clearly reference their huge 30001 filter model. So they aren't claiming the whole filter line is the same 99% @ 20μ.

Most people don't understand that smaller filters will most likely have a worse actual efficiency. The reason for that is because smaller filters will have a larger dP at the same test flow rate, and depending on the media's ability to hold captured debris well or not can effect the overall efficiency. If the media sloughs off already captured debris due to higher dP, then that reduces efficiency.

 

[RaRa]

The PL30001 probably is 99% @ 20μ if Purolator makes that claim. There's a reason they use the largest filter possible. I've pointed out many times that the size of the filter can impact the ISO efficiency test results. Sidenote - the 4 smallest PureOne spin-on filters were rated at 99% @ 40μ, so that gives an idea how size can effect the measured efficiency, compared to the huge 30001 spin-on.

Fram's ISO 4548-12 efficiency is the average of 3 different sized filters, so a better

The PL30001 probably is 99% @ 20μ if Purolator makes that claim. There's a reason they use the largest filter possible. I've pointed out many times that the size of the filter can impact the ISO efficiency test results. Sidenote - the 4 smallest PureOne spin-on filters were rated at 99% @ 40μ, so that gives an idea how size can effect the measured efficiency, compared to the huge 30001 spin-on.

Fram's ISO 4548-12 efficiency is the average of 3 different sized filters, so a better representation.

I agree that pl 30001 is 99% at 20 micron but I was under impression that when oil filter companies say 99% at micron it will throughout the product line pureone will be 99% at 20 micron and boss will 99% at 25 micron. Thank you for clarifying that oil filter play big role.

 

[fantastic]

They clearly reference their huge 30001 filter model. So they aren't claiming the whole filter line is the same 99% @ 20μ.

Most people don't understand that smaller filters will most likely have a worse actual efficiency. The reason for that is because smaller filters will have a larger dP at the same test flow rate, and depending on the media's ability to hold captured debris well or not can effect the overall efficiency. If the media sloughs off already captured debris due to higher dP, then that reduces efficiency.

Yes, that is true but I still think they aren't being transparent about boss line average efficiency. Don't you want Purolator to be more accurate on the overall average efficiency of their boss line? At least do several like fram.

More of the downsides of consumer marketing to the herd. We buy into it, including me, thinking we were getting some of the best filtration but as the OP shows on the one page mentioning 99%@46 that is a far cry from 99%@25 they market it to us. Haven't you seen the oil filters co's. throw 99% on all the boxes & so a lot of folks think they are getting the same efficiency rating for all the filters.

I live in dream land to think the oil filter co. would put individual efficiency specs on each filter products page. It appears they have the data but they are not going to share it. That's what I mean about not being transparent.

This just gets me... not excited...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yes, that is true but I still think they aren't being transparent about boss line average efficiency. Don't you want Purolator to be more accurate on the overall average efficiency of their boss line? At least do several like fram.

They also reference the PLB30001 for the Boss. Nowhere does Purolator say it represents the overall efficiency average of the entire filter line.

More of the downsides of consumer marketing to the herd. We buy into it, including me, thinking we were getting some of the best filtration but as the OP shows on the one page mentioning 99%@46 that is a far cry from 99%@25 they market it to us. Haven't you seen the oil filters co's. throw 99% on all the boxes & so a lot of folks think they are getting the same efficiency rating for all the filters.

Yes, they got you and 99.999% of the filter buyers with their advertising efficiency claim. But now you know the game they play, lol. And other companies have done the same. As said before, Fram is probably the most transparent by using the avg efficiency of 3 different sized filters to represent the efficiency of the whole line.

I live in dream land to think the oil filter co. would put individual efficiency specs on each filter products page. It appears they have the data but they are not going to share it. That's what I mean about not being transparent.

This just gets me... not excited...

WIX use use to show a beta ratio (another way to express efficiency) for basically every model, but not so much any more. No company is going to spend the time and money to physically ISO test every oil filter they make. If they ISO tested some filters across the size range they would know how the size (media area) effects the efficiency and model it. Or like Fram, the 3 sizes they choose to test probably covers the whole filter line (ie, PH, TG, XG, FE) for the avg efficiency pretty well. We saw with the Ascent testing that Fram isn't misleading, at least on the efficiency of the OG Ultra, and I'd suspect they are shooting straight on all their efficiency claims.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I agree that pl 30001 is 99% at 20 micron but I was under impression that when oil filter companies say 99% at micron it will throughout the product line pureone will be 99% at 20 micron and boss will 99% at 25 micron. Thank you for clarifying that oil filter play big role.

They reference a specific filter model/size for a reason. Nowhere do they say that all PureOne models are 99% @ 20μ. Next time you see some PureOnes in the store, look on the box to see what the efficiency spec is. The 4 smallest PureOne spin-ons I spoke of earlier only said they were 99% @ 40μ (not 20μ) on the box ... never on their website.

 

[RaRa]

They reference a specific filter model/size for a reason. Nowhere do they say that all PureOne models are 99% @ 20μ. Next time you see some PureOnes in the store, look on the box to see what the efficiency spec is. The 4 smallest PureOne spin-ons I spoke of earlier only said they were 99% @ 40μ (not 20μ) on the box ... never on their website.

On box they say 99% efficiency for all pureone and boss . Do not mention micron rating. It was on website at boss was 25 micron and pureone was 20 micron for Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001. So I was understanding that all pureone will 99% at 20 micron . Which I was wrong and pureone did make change pl10241 older was 25 micron 99% but new 15000 miles is 30 micron at 99%.

 

[fantastic]

They also reference the PLB30001 for the Boss. Nowhere does Purolator say it represents the overall efficiency average of the entire filter line.


Yes, they got you and 99.999% of the filter buyers with their advertising efficiency claim. But now you know the game they play, lol. And other companies have done the same. As said before, Fram is probably the most transparent by using the avg efficiency of 3 different sized filters to represent the efficiency of the whole line.


WIX use use to show a beta ratio (another way to express efficiency) for basically every model, but not so much any more. No company is going to spend the time and money to physically ISO test every oil filter they make. If they ISO tested some filters across the size range they would know how the size (media area) effects the efficiency and model it. Or like Fram, the 3 sizes they choose to test probably covers the whole filter line (ie, PH, TG, XG, FE) for the avg efficiency pretty well. We saw with the Ascent testing that Fram isn't misleading, at least on the efficiency of the OG Ultra, and I'd suspect they are shooting straight on all their efficiency claims.

I understand completely. We are on the same page.

Their PL30001 Pure One reference was precisely why I bought one for my father's early 90's F-150 351 V8. It was a matter of fact 99%@20 microns. It was a great feeling to tell him they tested this exact filter & results were great. He gladly had me order one up about 3 yrs ago from amaz.

I'll assume, along with what you said, that WIX beta ratios were too time consuming to update when it was time to change filter technology & the old info became obsolete. I know there were many that appreciated their beta ratio's being shown. I understand their lack of desire to keep this up (Profits).

Not trying to hate on either company. I'm a glass half full type character. My favorite 2 filter companies are Fram & Purolator for overall value, performance, & availability.

They clearly reference their huge 30001 filter model. So they aren't claiming the whole filter line is the same 99% @ 20μ.

Most people don't understand that smaller filters will most likely have a worse actual efficiency. The reason for that is because smaller filters will have a larger dP at the same test flow rate, and depending on the media's ability to hold captured debris well or not can effect the overall efficiency. If the media sloughs off already captured debris due to higher dP, then that reduces efficiency.

I will say that I believe Purolator puts more emphasis on preventing filter clogging as a top priority. This is after a conversation with some of the top folks at Puro back when they started the Boss line. They wanted to produce a filter that had a very slim chance to clog or bypass at all for 15k miles. Obviously, the way to do that is to have less efficient filters. A smaller filter obviously doesn't have as much media surface area as a larger one to collect debris. IMO a Fram Ultra/Endurance is going to have a bit higher chance of going into bypass than a Boss filter but this is all probably well obvious to you so I'll stop my run on.

 

[Davejam]

I'm surprised they provided that level of detail. Unfortunately that detail is pretty revealing that filtration is not a priority.

 

[twX]

The restriction of the Purolator Boss filters in these test reports seem to be a lot different from the results in the Ascent Filtration test. In the Ascent test, the Boss filter had a pressure drop of around 26 kPA, at 25 L/min with 13.5 cST oil. The filters in Purolator's test reports have pressure drops of 16.5 and 6.2 kPA at 25 L/min, with the oil much thicker at 24 cST. Adjusting these figures to the same 13.5 cST viscosity as the Ascent test, they would be 9.3 and 3.5 kPA. The PBL22500 in the Ascent test was also the largest of these three filters and has the most media area, yet had far higher restriction.

It's possible that Purolator is using a new media in these filters, which flows much better at the expense of efficiency. I do question the validity of the test report though. The ISO 4548 testing procedure requires the test fluid viscosity to be between 14 and 16 cST, but they have it listed as 24 cST in the reports. The pressure drop also seems really unnecessarily low given the 107 kPA bypass pressure.

The PurolatorOne PL14610 seems to have about 3 times the restriction of the Purolator Boss PBL14610 when adjusting the value to account for the different test flow rate.

 

[ZeeOSix]

IMO a Fram Ultra/Endurance is going to have a bit higher chance of going into bypass than a Boss filter but this is all probably well obvious to you so I'll stop my run on.

The Endurance "up to" use rating is higher than the Ultra, so it must have a bit more holding capacity. The Purolator Boss and the Ultra in the Ascent testing basically had the same holding capacity and took the same amount of time to achieve the +8 dP increase, but the Ultra was much more efficient. The blue line that is more efficient is the ACDelco. The Boss and WIX XP had similar efficiency curves.

 

[fantastic]

The Endurance "up to" use rating is higher than the Ultra, so it must have a bit more holding capacity. The Purolator Boss and the Ultra in the Ascent testing basically had the same holding capacity and took the same amount of time to achieve the +8 dP increase, but the Ultra was much more efficient. The blue line that is more efficient is the ACDelco. The Boss and WIX XP had similar efficiency curves.

View attachment 156821

View attachment 156822

I stand corrected. I've seen that graph already but never put the pieces together & it is an excellent example of Fram's ability to make a filter media hold lots of debris while giving a better efficiency than the Boss. I agree that Endurance might hold more since it is wire backed & all. Fram makes a Darn good filter! Mind blown