purolator 10241 line up efficency

[volk06]

3 of the vehicles I service use the FL-910s, fram 3614 or purolator 10241 filters. I was curious about the efficiency of the 10241 line-up so I sent purolator tech support an email. Here is what I received about the 10241 filter specs. I have two L10241 and one PL10241 in the line up to use next as they were on sale and the updated versions. I think I'll stick with the Fram TG/Ultra moving forward for the 5-6k OCIs I run. The first two aren't horrible but the boss... yikes.

The L10241 is listed as a 25 micron filter at 99%.

The PL10241 is listed as a 21 micron filter at 99%.

The PBL10241 is listed at 46 at 99%.

Thank you,


Mann+Hummel Product Information

Product Information (800) 526-4250)

Mon-Fri, 8:00am-7:30pm,

& Sat, 9:00am-5:30pm (Eastern)

 

[tyman]

Interesting because on their site:

• SmartFUSION™ Full Synthetic Media providing maximum engine protection for up to 20,000 miles with over 99% Dirt Removal Power™*

*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PBL30001

 

[volk06]

Interesting because on their site:

Got to look at the *. That rating based on the PBL30001 filter, which is ~2 inches longer than the 10241 line up.

 

[tyman]

Got to look at the *. That rating based on the PBL30001 filter, which is ~2 inches longer than the 10241 line up.

Yes, different filter but hard to believe that the specs would be that different between the two.

 

[tasch72]

The spec on the PurolatorBoss PBL10241 lines up with what Ascent Filtration Testing found through his testing on a PBL22500 (Fram PH10060 interchange)

The PurolatorBoss and WixXP/Napa Platinums definitely give up some room down low for a longer OCI.

I think the PurolatorOnes are a hidden gem, especially for those with a Menard's nearby. I have a few PL24651's (Fram PH2 interchange) and a PL20195 (Fram PH3600) interchange.

 

[Job]

You should ask a follow up question as to the Boss number they sent you, referencing their website and box info. I threw away my Boss box, just installed one on a family members car. Last one I have I think. Price is too high now. I think it has the same numbers on all boxes,as it would be logical given it’s a lab test on the exact same media. Definitely said 99 or 99+% with an asterisk. They really can’t be doing that % unless the micron number is the same. They can, but it would be very strange.

 

[Passport1]

Thanks for the info. I use Puro filters frequently and was curious about that. Bought some Boss filters from RA a couple of months ago. When they are gone I'll drop back to the Pure One for the better filtration.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Got to look at the *. That rating based on the PBL30001 filter, which is ~2 inches longer than the 10241 line up.

True. Recall the old discussions about the 4 smallest PureOne spin-ons that were/are rated at 99% @ 40μ instead of 99% @ 20μ. It was printed right on the box.

Smaller filters with the same exact media, but with less media area, will have worse efficiency than a bigger filter with the same amount of loading debris. This is because more loading causes more delta-p which causes more captured debris sloughing, and therefore a worse overall ISO efficiency rating.

 

[ZeeOSix]

You should ask a follow up question as to the Boss number they sent you, referencing their website and box info. I threw away my Boss box, just installed one on a family members car. Last one I have I think. Price is too high now. I think it has the same numbers on all boxes,as it would be logical given it’s a lab test on the exact same media. Definitely said 99 or 99+% with an asterisk. They really can’t be doing that % unless the micron number is the same. They can, but it would be very strange.

The astrix probably said the efficiency was at 25u based on the PBL30001 ... just like it says on their website.

 

[Job]

True. Recall the old discussions about the 4 smallest PureOne spin-ons that were/are rated at 99% @ 40μ instead of 99% @ 20μ. It was printed right on the box.

Smaller filters with the same exact media, but with less media area, will have worse efficiency than a bigger filter with the same amount of loading debris. This is because more loading causes more delta-p which causes more captured debris sloughing, and therefore a worse overall ISO efficiency rating.

I figured this would be the reasoning. Not sure it’s true. It’s a gradient and one ends faster than the other. During the gradient things should be equal, I think. Fram puts three filters on their statement, a large, a medium without bypass valve, and the small 4967. All three are touted as the same. As far as Purolator putting sometimes different microns on different sizes, never heard of that . I would guess they used different media on those for some reason, like the pores have to be larger so the filter can meet the dirt capacity requirement. If it’s small and the interval is 10k then they use more porous media. Not Fram, apparently the small ones meet the requirement. Or maybe not, and no one will ever know the diff.

 

[Chris142]

What is the rating after the media tears?

 

[volk06]

What is the rating after the media tears?

Inconceivable - After all, you can't tear the boss's filtering media!

 

[ZeeOSix]

I figured this would be the reasoning. Not sure it’s true. It’s a gradient and one ends faster than the other. During the gradient things should be equal, I think. Fram puts three filters on their statement, a large, a medium without bypass valve, and the small 4967. All three are touted as the same. As far as Purolator putting sometimes different microns on different sizes, never heard of that . I would guess they used different media on those for some reason, like the pores have to be larger so the filter can meet the dirt capacity requirement. If it’s small and the interval is 10k then they use more porous media. Not Fram, apparently the small ones meet the requirement. Or maybe not, and no one will ever know the diff.

You should recall all those lower efficiency discussions on the smallest PureOnes back when you were 'goodtimes'. I posted about it and it was discussed a lot. I'm sure Sayjac recalls those discussions. Go do some searching, the threads are still here.

Why would Purolator or any other filter maker use a different media in their smaller filters ... zero logic to do so.

For Fram to base their ISO efficiency on 3 different sized filters is a better way to do it than to base it on just the biggest filter they made, like Purolator and other filter makers do. If you understand how the ISO efficiency rating is determined, it will tell you that the media in used by Fram has a better ability to retain already captured particles. If a particular media performs badly in efficiency as a function of the delta-p across it, then the media will have more of a tendency to perform differently in different sized filters.

This has been discussed for quite a while now, and it is slowly being understood and was actually verified by Andrew's ISO testing data. I was told by Purolator engineers a long time ago via emails that this is the case. Those threads are still here too.

 

[Job]

I explained your question already in my other post.
Very logical why they went to a less efficient media long ago in Purolator small filters. Are they doing it now? Yes, or No.
I already know about the efficiency goes down, long ago. You weren’t the first one to say it. Some of the best posters here gave up and never returned due to the bickering.
If the size of filters results in 20 micron differences in the ratings I say we have trouble right here in River City.
It has to be called conspiracy theory to make these leaps of belief about, of course Purolator, when there is no evidence whatsoever they are cooking the ratings by stating one filter size. It’s just nonsense, fabrication based on an agenda.
Go ahead have your last words, wasting my time here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I explained your question already in my other post.
Very logical why they went to a less efficient media long ago in Purolator small filters. Are they doing it now? Yes, or No.

You haven't explained anything. There is no way Purolator is using less efficient filter media in the 4 smallest PureOne filters. What's your proof? Post it up.

I already know about the efficiency goes down, long ago. You weren’t the first one to say it. Some of the best posters here gave up and never returned due to the bickering.

It was never brought up until I emailed Purolator many years ago asking them how the filter efficiency changes with use, and one of their engineers responded to me explaining the "hockey stick" shaped efficiency curve. It was never discussed by anyone before that, so who brought that subject matter up many years ago? More claims without proof.

If the size of filters results in 20 micron differences in the ratings I say we have trouble right here in River City.
It has to be called conspiracy theory to make these leaps of belief about, of course Purolator, when there is no evidence whatsoever they are cooking the ratings by stating one filter size. It’s just nonsense, fabrication based on an agenda.
Go ahead have your last words, wasting my time here.

You obviously have zero understanding of how the ISO efficiency tests works, or how the delta-p can influence the overall efficiency rating. It was even discussed and shown to be true in Andrew's ISO test data. Even the Ultra lost a little bit of efficiency with loading, but it was much less than the others. That's why the ISO rating on the Ultra is so high - because it doesn't lose much efficiency with delta-p and doesn't slough off debris with increasing delta-p. I know it upsets you that the Ultra smoked all those other full synthetic filters, you probably think the test was manipulate in some way, lol. The only ones here that believes in conspiracy theories are those who don't understand testing and the data. There is a reason Purolator and others use their most gigantic filter to rate the efficiency.

 

[CR94]

... Smaller filters with the same exact media, but with less media area, will have worse efficiency than a bigger filter with the same amount of loading debris. This is because more loading causes more delta-p which causes more captured debris sloughing, and therefore a worse overall ISO efficiency rating.

That's logical, assuming the flow rate is the same in the test, regardless of filter size. Is it the same, or is it scaled to the size of the filter somehow?

Another implication is that high engine speed will increase sloughing of particles.

 

[ZeeOSix]

That's logical, assuming the flow rate is the same in the test, regardless of filter size. Is it the same, or is it scaled to the size of the filter somehow?

The ISO 4548-12 test is for filter elements having a rated flow between 4 l/min and 600 l/min. That's 1.06 to 158.5 GPM ... very large range of flow.

The flow rate of the test oil should be kept at the same flow rate regardless of the filter size if testing a spectrum of same type filters. Not sure what flow rate most labs would choose for a passenger car filter (would be up to the filter maker requesting or doing the testing in-house), but most car engines will be moving around 3-4 GPM cruising around normally and probably around 8-10 GPM max near redline. So picking something around 5 GPM for the ISO efficiency test would work for any passenger car sized oil filter.

The rate of test dust concentration going to the filter inlet can be adjusted (per the ISO procedure) based on the size of the filter so that it takes about the same total test time to fully load the filter and achieve max delta-p before bypass happens. In other words, you wouldn't want to inject the test dust at some crazy level on a very small filter and make it load up to near bypass delta-p in just a few minutes.

Another implication is that high engine speed will increase sloughing of particles.

Definitely. A filter that has 10 GPM going through it (with the same oil viscosity) will have more delta-p and more likely to slough off debris than if the flow was only 3 GPM.

 

[volk06]

I explained your question already in my other post.
Very logical why they went to a less efficient media long ago in Purolator small filters. Are they doing it now? Yes, or No.
I already know about the efficiency goes down, long ago. You weren’t the first one to say it. Some of the best posters here gave up and never returned due to the bickering.
If the size of filters results in 20 micron differences in the ratings I say we have trouble right here in River City.
It has to be called conspiracy theory to make these leaps of belief about, of course Purolator, when there is no evidence whatsoever they are cooking the ratings by stating one filter size. It’s just nonsense, fabrication based on an agenda.
Go ahead have your last words, wasting my time here.

Are you responding to me? What agenda are you implying here? All I did was simply post the response I received from M&H. Truly curious to what agenda has created this conspiracy theory? I didn’t make up any of the efficiency data.

 

[Job]

Are you responding to me? What agenda are you implying here? All I did was simply post the response I received from M&H. Truly curious to what agenda has created this conspiracy theory? I didn’t make up any of the efficiency data.

I said, “I explained your question already in my other post. ” You didn’t ask a question. Then the one it was directed at went on to something long, I didn’t even read it, just saw a couple words.
So, no wasn’t responding to you.
They could have made a mistake with the 46, which is earlier why I politely suggested contacting them to verify.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I said, “I explained your question already in my other post. ” You didn’t ask a question. Then the one it was directed at went on to something long, I didn’t even read it, just saw a couple words.
So, no wasn’t responding to you.
They could have made a mistake with the 46, which is earlier why I politely suggested contacting them to verify.

No wonder, maybe it's too hard to understand. Just keep on with your nonsense rambling and obvious trolling as usual.