Purolator Boss ADBV Damage Pictures

[Merkava_4]

I have compiled these pictures from several threads showing the damage done to Purolator Boss ADBVs. When Purolator drills the holes into the baseplate, they don't debur the holes before assembling the filter. As a result, when the baseplate presses up against the ADBV after assembly, the burrs in the baseplate holes cut into the soft silicone ADBV. This is a manufacturing error that can be easily remedied. You guys keep debating the filtering efficiency between the Fram Ultra and the Purolator Boss. I think you guys are wasting your time and mental energy in debating the efficiency between the two filters when the Purolator Boss is pretty much a dead on arrival filter. I recommend you guys forget about it and don't buy it.

 

[Nitronoise]

It appears that the SPC parameters are not accounting for a tool change when drilling the holes and the tool is getting dull
when trying to eek out a few more parts before tool change, or a really poor sampling during the production run

either way it has to be fixed

 

[Linctex]

Hmmm... "Public Service announcement"?

 

[Linctex]

The base plates you show have 8 small holes.

The torn ADBV is from a filter base with 6 large holes.


Apples to oranges.........

 

[Donald]

I do not see the the issue. The baseplate that touches the ADBV does not appear to have burs. They are at the other end of the hole. The cuts in the ADBV look pretty uniform, as in intentional.

On the down side, I would prefer the holes were deburred as a little chunk of metal could break free.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Donald
I do not see the the issue. The baseplate that touches the ADBV does not appear to have burs.


Look at the bottom of the holes in the 1st picture and the bottom of the holes in the 3rd picture. The burrs are plainly evident. It's very easy to conclude that the cuts into the ADBV are caused by the direct contact of the baseplate.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

And I still haven't seen anything that shows a detriment to the engine caused by the small cuts in the ADBV (which are CLOSED when the ADBV is in it's intended position, not bent into a taco) which prove this is actually something that has a negative effect on the filter's performance.

I make glass jars and bottles for a living, and there are about 1,000 different ways that you can "disqualify" a container for being defective... and 99.99% of them will never affect nor ever be noticed by an end consumer or our customer. Until I see proof otherwise and not internet banter, I believe these cut ADBVs fall into the 99.99% OK category.

I don't care either way, because I don't use Purolator filters, but where are the UOAs that show a cut ADBV is just like dumping a 5 gallon pail of sand down the oil fill tube? Because that's what this hype would have you believe...

 

[Donald]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Donald
I do not see the the issue. The baseplate that touches the ADBV does not appear to have burs.


Look at the bottom of the holes in the 1st picture and the bottom of the holes in the 3rd picture. The burrs are plainly evident. It's very easy to conclude that the cuts into the ADBV are caused by the direct contact of the baseplate.


I see the burrs but they do not appear to be sticking past the end of the hole touching the ADBV.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
And I still haven't seen anything that shows a detriment to the engine caused by the small cuts in the ADBV (which are CLOSED when the ADBV is in it's intended position, not bent into a taco) which prove this is actually something that has a negative effect on the filter's performance.


Now you're splitting hairs and making up excuses for Purolator. Why spend $11.99 for a filter with manufacturing defects ?

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Donald
I see the burrs but they do not appear to be sticking past the end of the hole touching the ADBV.


At the 7th picture down, the cuts in the ADBV are the same radius as the baseplate holes. It's obvious.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
You guys keep debating the filtering efficiency between the Fram Ultra and the Purolator Boss. I think you guys are wasting your time and mental energy in debating the efficiency between the two filters when the Purolator Boss is pretty much a dead on arrival filter.


How can there be an efficiency debate between the Ultra and Boss when the Ultra is 99% @ 20u and the Boss is 99% @ 40u. Those two specs right there pretty much put that debate to rest IMO.

The other debate about efficiency going on is the ability to measure efficiency above beta 75 (98.7% efficiency). Guess the 99% @ 40u is believable for the Boss because even a junky particle counter can accurately count 40u or larger particles.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Nitronoise
It appears that the SPC parameters are not accounting for a tool change when drilling the holes and the tool is getting dull when trying to eek out a few more parts before tool change, or a really poor sampling during the production run

either way it has to be fixed


I think the holes are punched out, not drilled. But yes, dull tooling and/or bad punching process that needs to be fixed.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
How can there be an efficiency debate between the Ultra and Boss when the Ultra is 99% @ 20u and the Boss is 99% @ 40u. Those two specs right there pretty much put that debate to rest IMO.


That efficiency difference between the two filters may put the debate to rest, but why have the debate in the first place when the ADBV is all cut up ?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Purolator drawing specification for the base plate holes.




Resulting manufacturing ... built per drawing.

 

[CKN]

I thought this was done away with after CRAZYOILDUDES passing.


I see nothing that would prevent me from using that filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CKN
I thought this was done away with after CRAZYOILDUDES passing.


He was more concerned about messed up louvers in the center tube.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
And I still haven't seen anything that shows a detriment to the engine caused by the small cuts in the ADBV (which are CLOSED when the ADBV is in it's intended position, not bent into a taco) which prove this is actually something that has a negative effect on the filter's performance.


Now you're splitting hairs and making up excuses for Purolator. Why spend $11.99 for a filter with manufacturing defects ?


I already said I don't use them, so how is that making excuses for them? I just asked for objective data that proves those cuts cause the filter to perform poorly. I deal with lots of data for my job, including Six Sigma... so the "gut feel" that tears are bad doesn't necessarily make them so. If you don't like them, fine... don't buy them. But if an engine performs identically with one of these horrific monstrosities of a cut ADBV as it does with a Fram Ultra, well then you can't argue that the filter itself is bad.

And Zee, I believe only the smaller filters are (or at least it used to be) 40u rated... the larger sizes used to reference 99%@20u as well.

I think my favorite manufacturing saying of all time is: "Quality, Price, Delivery. Choose two." Meaning, you can't have exactly what you want on all three. To meet expectations on two of them, one will always suffer. Play it out in your head on both the high end and low end of the market... it holds true everywhere.

 

[WellOiled]

I see no reason to pay a premium price for a filter like this one.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: CKN
I see nothing that would prevent me from using that filter.


Whatever. . . . It's YOUR money.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
And Zee, I believe only the smaller filters are (or at least it used to be) 40u rated... the larger sizes used to reference 99%@20u as well.


That was true for the old PureOne filters. The full synthetic Boss is all 99% @ 40u. See link below where I called Purolator to find out about the new filter line. Of course the Purolator website page link found in the link below just shows "99%+" without any micron rating. I had to talk to someone at Purolator to get the micron size associated with the efficiency percents. I see they haven't updated the website info to include the micron size like the person said they were "planning" to do. LINK