Purolater Pure one...

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
GARY ALLAN/SUPERBUSA: You two need to find a state that allows "gay" marriage, move, and get hitched! If you're going to argue like an old married couple - you might as well be!

... Naaaw, he's too "crotchety" for my liking ... but he is funny sometimes!

Plus, I don't think the wife would think he's better looking than her.

 

[pzev]

If you can't win the game, change the rules so you can. A famous Starfleet Captain taught me that...

Anyways I have figured it out, Gary and Super are really the same person...he just suffers from dissociative personality disorder.
Seriously, get back on your meds and only use 1 bitog account!!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
If the pump is in relief the supply pressure is 100 psi. At 100 psi, the flow rate going through the filter/engine IS THE MAX POSSIBLE WITH THIS OIL VISCOSITY. Let's assume the flow rate is 6 gpm.


Sure. Have I disputed it?

Let's go back here ..

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
... there's no loss of flow to the engine unless the pump is in relief.


Actually, there is no loss of flow volume to the engine even with the pump in relief. All that is happening when in pressure relief is that no increased pressure is put on the filter/engine flow path ... so therefore, the MAX flow volume will occur at pump pressure relief point. All excess pump volume is simply shunted back to the sump via the relief valve.

You can not make any more volume go down the filter/engine circuit than when at pressure relief point. Pressure is what PUSHES the oil through the filter/engine ... nothing else. The higher the pressure, the higher the flow volume. Supply pressure is MAX at the pump's pressure relief setting.

Now ..and some how you'll assert that you weren't fully aware of this ..if I had been anal enough to say "there's no loss of PUMP OUTPUT to the engine unless the pump is in relief. This is an obvious and simple statement. One that you cannot and could not deny....

hence..you went in a whole dissertation to explain the obvious in a self authored light to give the impression that you corrected me.

btw- the MAXIMUM FLOW POSSIBLE isn't "full flow" is it?

Did I state anything in conflict with that and was anything I said NOT correct ....actually

Yes or no?


..or can we play more word games with Soupy

How's the nymph Echo, btw?

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Let's go back here ..

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
... there's no loss of flow to the engine unless the pump is in relief.

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Actually, there is no loss of flow volume to the engine even with the pump in relief. All that is happening when in pressure relief is that no increased pressure is put on the filter/engine flow path ... so therefore, the MAX flow volume will occur at pump pressure relief point. All excess pump volume is simply shunted back to the sump via the relief valve.

You can not make any more volume go down the filter/engine circuit than when at pressure relief point. Pressure is what PUSHES the oil through the filter/engine ... nothing else. The higher the pressure, the higher the flow volume. Supply pressure is MAX at the pump's pressure relief setting.


Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Now ..and some how you'll assert that you weren't fully aware of this ..if I had been anal enough to say "there's no loss of PUMP OUTPUT to the engine unless the pump is in relief. This is an obvious and simple statement. One that you cannot and could not deny....


Gary ... it's your terminology and writing style that's misleading. There IS A DIFFERENCE between these two statements ... these are both YOUR statements I'll show below. Remember, I responded to statement 1 below ... I can only take the written words at face value. I'm not a mind reader ... yet.

Statement 1 by Gary
"There's no loss of flow to the engine unless the pump is in relief."

Key words here are "flow to the engine". When the pump is in relief mode, the "flow to the engine" is the flow that is realized by the engine due to the pump's output pressure put on the engine flow path. The REST of the flow is shunted to the sump - the engine could care less! ... it doesn't know any different. So, you see there is really no "loss of flow to the engine", because the engine is taking as much flow as it can at the max pressure realized at the pump relief point.

Statement 2 by Gary
"There's no loss of PUMP OUTPUT to the engine unless the pump is in relief."

This statement is worded more correct on the what I've been saying. This is (vaguely) saying that any flow that the engine can't take when the pump is in relief mode MUST go back to the sump. The engine can ONLY FLOW what it can at MAX pump output pressure which occurs at the point of pump pressure relief.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
hence..you went in a whole dissertation to explain the obvious in a self authored light to give the impression that you corrected me.

btw- the MAXIMUM FLOW POSSIBLE isn't "full flow" is it?

Did I state anything in conflict with that and was anything I said NOT correct ....actually

Yes or no?


So, let me ask you why you never agreed with me when I described this same thing over and over DOZENS OF TIMES in the last month or two!?!

I smell fish, and have a feeling this is probably a cover up to save face ... otherwise you would have seen this a long time ago, and not always say I was wrong when I described this exact issue in FULL DETAIL many, many times. I wasn't born yesterday.

And BTW ... words in the English language are supposed to mean something specific ... not what you erroneously think they mean in your head. I write and read words by their given meanings ... nothing else, otherwise things get all twisted up, and I think that's half your problem in these discussions. My comparing of your two statements above proves that.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

btw- the MAXIMUM FLOW POSSIBLE isn't "full flow" is it?


The terminology has to be used carefully. You see, the "MAX FLOW POSSIBLE" depends if you are talking about the max possible flow coming out of the pump before it hits the relief valve, or the "MAX FLOW POSSIBLE" in term of what flow goes down the filter/engine flow circuit. There IS A DIFFERENCE, and hopefully we have finally put the understanding to bed with these last posts.

And BTW ... define YOUR term "full flow". That can mean a lot of things without some qualification on what it really means in your mind.

 

[Gary Allan]

Soup ..man ..you just can't see it. Oh ..my gosh ..the pity I have for others around you ..really. You can't possibly act this way all the time and have anything but wreckage all around you in interpersonal relationships. Unfortunately ..I sincerely mean this. Are most people around you wrong all the time? When you don't agree with them ..excuse me, I meant ..they don't agree with you. Whenever you error ..I mean ..when something doesn't work out ..is it always someone else's fault?


You just retyped the obvious for the (I think) 3rd time. You make it, again, appear that I'm arguing with it and you took exception ...after all the over and over and over again redundant exchanges that we've had ..at what I said because you saw opportunity to nit pick about stuff that's old history in discussion. ie givens.


Quote:
And BTW ... words in the English language are supposed to mean something specific ... to what you erroneously think they mean. I write and read words by their meanings ... nothing else, otherwise things get all twisted up, and I think that's half you problem in these discussions. My comparing your two statements proves that.


Half "you" problem? Half of your problem is seeking out flaws in rhyme and meter so you can blather some more on the obvious.

I may be crazy and under disciplined ..but you're weird. Again, unfortunately, I sincerely mean that. This isn't even some cultural quirk like mori.

I'm not angry with you, Soup, but I can't engage with you anymore. Feeding into this is just wrong. I'm ashamed of myself.

I'll do all of my work all over again ..but I won't be seeing your response to it.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Soup ..man ..you just can't see it. Oh ..my gosh ..the pity I have for others around you ..really. You can't possibly act this way all the time and have anything but wreckage all around you in interpersonal relationships. Unfortunately ..I sincerely mean this. Are most people around you wrong all the time? When you don't agree with them ..excuse me, I meant ..they don't agree with you. Whenever you error ..I mean ..when something doesn't work out ..is it always someone else's fault?

You just retyped the obvious for the (I think) 3rd time. You make it, again, appear that I'm arguing with it and you took exception ...after all the over and over and over again redundant exchanges that we've had ..at what I said because you saw opportunity to nit pick about stuff that's old history in discussion. ie givens.

Quote:
And BTW ... words in the English language are supposed to mean something specific ... to what you erroneously think they mean. I write and read words by their meanings ... nothing else, otherwise things get all twisted up, and I think that's half you problem in these discussions. My comparing your two statements proves that.


Half "you" problem? Half of your problem is seeking out flaws in rhyme and meter so you can blather some more on the obvious.

I may be crazy and under disciplined ..but you're weird. Again, unfortunately, I sincerely mean that. This isn't even some cultural quirk like mori.

I'm not angry with you, Soup, but I can't engage with you anymore. Feeding into this is just wrong. I'm ashamed of myself.

I'll do all of my work all over again ..but I won't be seeing your response to it.


Dude, listen ... you don't always write and read things at face value IMO ... you certainly have a different perspective which I would say was at least in the 2 sigma range. Sometimes you don't write clearly or write what you think you mean, and I know sometimes you don't either read or comprehend the details I painstakingly give on this board trying to discuss this stuff with you.

If you can't tell I'm very technical ... no slop with me ... tight, concise, accurate. If you can't deal with it then you better stop exchanging posts with me. It's either right or wrong, and if it's wrong I'll say so. Accept it, deal with it.

You sucked yourself into this ... if you feel bad about it all then that's too bad, and only your own fault. Frankly, I think it's a "popularity contest" in your mind since you've been here and are well known ... you'd hate to have someone come here and school you on things you've tried to establish as "gospel" for years.

Nobody held a 357 mag to your head and made you debate any of this stuff. I think in your mind, instead of us being friends, we have become nemeses ... all though I don't feel that way and really hold no ill feelings towards you or anyone else. In fact, I've become good friends with many people I've butted heads with. This is all a learning experience ... so take it as nothing more.

Good night ... don't let Bernoulli bite.

 

[OVERKILL]

FWIW, you two seem to be arguing semantics and reiteration with more semantics and reiteration. Making the same point 400x in a multitude of threads and then arguing the verbiage by virtue of (you guessed it) more reiteration in a way that it comes across as "your idea"......

It has become a touch ridiculous.

Beastly: I have an idea, we'll trap the Care Bears with this elaborate netting system and be able to deliver them directly to NoHeart!

Shreiky: I have an even BETTER idea! We'll trap the Care Bears with this elaborate netting system and be able to deliver them DIRECTLY to Noheart!

Yes, it has come to this.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
FWIW, you two seem to be arguing semantics and reiteration with more semantics and reiteration. Making the same point 400x in a multitude of threads and then arguing the verbiage by virtue of (you guessed it) more reiteration in a way that it comes across as "your idea"......

It has become a touch ridiculous.


There definitely is some of that ... but as I showed by Gary's two different statements in a few posts above where he thought he was saying the same thing, the two statements obviously didn't mean the same thing. It's stuff like that which causes all the strife in these discussions. Differences in terminology use, differences in writing and reading comprehension, etc. It all adds up to a total frickin' disaster.

I literally feel I have to say this stuff 5 different ways and multiple times for him to grasp it ... then when it seem we agree he will turn around at the last minute and disagree with it all. It's ultimate wall head bangin' at it's best.

I think it's time we just ignore each other and do our own things on the board. People can read and make up their own decision on who makes sense and who doesn't.

 

[pzev]

How about you both agree to disagree.

Your arguing over something that is pointless to anyone reading this board...and anyone who would need such information is most likely already in the know.

 

[Sayjac]

r_r, thanks for the pics, they're grrreat! I like Pure Ones and even their lesser cost relatives Classic, AAP TG and Motorcraft.

Just put a Pure One on my 07 Honda 3.0L. I cut open the Honda A-02 from the dealer, looks like a Fram Tough Guard without the bypass screen. The Pure One is a much more solid looking filter. I combined it with some QS HorsePower, and will run it down to to 10-15% of OLM, or 1 year whichever comes first.

Interesting dunk test. The Pure One is a great value and a great filter, your pics/post confirm what I have believed.

 

[river_rat]

Thanks.
I know millions use the all the Frams' versions without apparent issues (and I used to) but I think these are much better, and for the same or less $$$.

(Sure, if I was out of town and needed a filter I would use a TG or XG for the one OCI and it would do the job, but from my examinations, I like Purolator/PureOne, WIX/NG, Mobil 1, Balwin/Hastings, Denso (Toyota OEM), and K&N oil filters.)

 

[river_rat]

One more test:
The procedure I use is to take 6 tablespoons of talcum powder (which is typically about 10 microns according to the Filter Council pdf webpage) and mix it into about a pint of fresh 5W-20.
1. Clean and dry my test bottles and eye-dropper inside and out.
2. Submerge the clean filter element into the talc/oil and draw samples from the center tube.
3. Re-stir the talc/oil, rinse out my eyedropper in clean oil, and repeat with the second clean element.
4. Cap and re-clean and dry the outside of the test bottles as needed.
5. Agitate test bottles all the same and let set to raise any air bubbles.
6. I use sunlight to examine and photograph the relative clarity of the filtered oil next to
a clean oil sample and an unfiltered oil/talc sample.

Left to right, unfiltered talc/oil mix. Clean oil from same source,
old style PureOne sample, new style PureOne sample.
It appears that the old, relatively slow flowing PureOne has a slight edge in filtering these very fine particles—but it is still one of the best results I’ve seen from an oil filter in testing this way.

 

[daman]

Hmmm it should be better,did you run it twice?? good test!

move the jars father away the (white)shadow is carrying over to the next jar it looks like..

 

[river_rat]

No I didn't run it twice, but I can.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: daman

move the jars father away the (white)shadow is carrying over to the next jar it looks like..

 

[river_rat]

OK. I think I know what happened. I don't usually test two elements right after each other, and as you can see by the filtered results, the mixture, and so the filtrate gets progressively more concentrated if I'm not careful.
When I lifted the first element out of the mixture, I let it drain back and the white sludge runs back into the mix can while the thin oil stays mostly in the paper.
This time I tested the same way, (but opposite filter order) only without draining back into the can.
Now I can't really see any difference between the two filters. I can only see that since the mixrue is cloudier than the first test, so is the filtered oil. The filters only ever catch a percentage of my brew, so I have to be careful to keep the mixure as constant as possible:

In each case the new style PureOne sample is on the right.

 

[daman]

Hmmm hard to tell now,the same???

 

[river_rat]

Ya. Same as far as I can tell in person with the samples.
The new style is rated at 99.9% eff. @ 20 microns, and the old one @ 98% efficiency but it's a little vague on microns.
Anyway, visually, there's no way I could tell the difference when two ratings are that close.
It does seem to flow and clear up the oil very well though--and this is just one pass of oil so contaminated it looks like house paint.
I've tested a bunch of filters this way, and seen a lot cloudier oil get through.
I'd say the new PureOne passes my little tests really well.

 

[daman]

I'd say too,going to use it noooo problem!!!