Purolator Boss PBL14476

[GW.]

This is what was corrected?

View attachment 305954

No, the official Purolator website was updated after a BITOG member contacted the president. First update was 99%@46 microns. Was updated again to 99% with no microns. Amazon was never updated, among other sellers.

 

[4wd]

No, the official Purolator website was updated after a BITOG member contacted the president. First update was 99%@46 microns. Was updated again to 99% with no microns. Amazon was never updated, among other sellers.

So just another Wix XP story …

 

[GW.]

So just another Wix XP story …

Exactly. Found the thread.

 

[Fair enough]

This is what was corrected?

View attachment 305954

That’s what I see when I bought on Amazon, just like I would see if I bought at OReillys. The data shown came from a test, somewhere sometime, from both stores. I don't know what value is correct on the Boss. I am satisfied with the product, and was ready not to be. Especially for the price.

 

[4wd]

That’s what I see when I bought on Amazon, just like I would see if I bought at OReillys. The data shown came from a test, somewhere sometime, from both stores. I don't know what value is correct on the Boss. I am satisfied with the product, and was ready not to be. Especially for the price.

Without exact dates - seems like a crapshoot - but we see that come and go with other filters too …
Maybe OEM’s have some control - the lowly PF63 has stayed at 25-30 for many years …

 

[ZeeOSix]

That’s what I see when I bought on Amazon, just like I would see if I bought at OReillys. The data shown came from a test, somewhere sometime, from both stores. I don't know what value is correct on the Boss.

Wouldn't you think the current corresponding and agreeing efficiency info from Purolator and Mann-Hummel would be the information to believe, instead of possible years old wrong information? At one time before M-H got hold of Purolator, the Boss PBL30001 (their largest filter) could have been 99% @ 25u, but all the current info from the company that makes and sells them says that's not the case today.

 

[Durdude]

I ordered some Boss off Amazon a couple days ago for $4 free shipping! The equivalent of the 3614 for fram and supertech. Common toyota filter. Anyways. Amazon showed a chart for Purolator one and Boss at 99% @ 20. I emailed customer service and they said Boss was 99%@46 and the One was 99%@20
Here is a shot of the Boss info on Amazon. It says +*99 so I dont know what that means but the One did not have the +

 

[ZeeOSix]

I ordered some Boss off Amazon a couple days ago for $4 free shipping! The equivalent of the 3614 for fram and supertech. Common toyota filter. Anyways. Amazon showed a chart for Purolator one and Boss at 99% @ 20. I emailed customer service and they said Boss was 99%@46 and the One was 99%@20
Here is a shot of the Boss info on Amazon. It says +*99 so I dont know what that means but the One did not have the +View attachment 306211View attachment 306212

Another example of old specification info on Amazon, and probably other retailers. Oil filters change so fast you'd need an army to keep up with changing the information all over the internet.

 

[dnewton3]

Another example of old specification info on Amazon, and probably other retailers. Oil filters change so fast you'd need an army to keep up with changing the information all over the internet.

Not to mention the propensity nowadays for counterfeit junk to be sold through Amazon.
I would not trust a filter (or other things like spark plugs, serp belts, fuses, etc) via AMZ these days.

 

[sw99]

Looks like a decent filter. Thanks for the C&P pics. I bought several of these for the LX and the Subi's.

 

[4wd]

There are 2 telephone poles behind my house - one is very old - and one was put in after I moved here …
A 3rd guy showed up today to inspect the same (newer) pole …

I’m nominating them for the 2025 Purolator Boss Efficiency Award

 

[fantastic]

ISO tested data are facts, not marketing, until there is updated information to suggest otherwise. To be clear, all of those spec sheets I've shared came straight from Purolator contact information.

 

[Fair enough]

ISO tested data are facts, not marketing, until there is updated information to suggest otherwise. To be clear, all of those spec sheets I've shared came straight from Purolator contact information.

They are office staff with limited experience. I know the whole story quite well by now. After my own visual I think it’s excellent media, in the upper levels. Not full of holes like some others. They also stated 99+%@25 microns on the websites with the test procedure type. So now it’s said they took away the 46 microns, so the party should be over. We don’t know for sure where it’s at now. It’s moved on from being 46 microns.

 

[fantastic]

They are office staff with limited experience. I know the whole story quite well by now. After my own visual I think it’s excellent media, in the upper levels. Not full of holes like some others. They also stated 99+%@25 microns on the websites with the test procedure type. So now it’s said they took away the 46 microns, so the party should be over. We don’t know for sure where it’s at now. It’s moved on from being 46 microns.

The absence or removal on the website doesn't nullify the specification sheets. I get it though, we want things to be better than they're perceived. Add in incorrect or odd marketing & the consumer really struggles. But to your point, the filters you have could be different but until I see otherwise it's hard to say it's different efficiency. That's okay though, I like the One's & BOSS filters, I still use them, but it's unfortunate they've decided to quit the spec sheets as we all should be informed consumers on the basic facts of their efficiency & holding capacity.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Mann-Hummel took the low efficiency specs off the Purolator website, and banned spec sheets from being given to the public because they don't want bad press about low efficiency. WIX did the same thing with the XP, it was once shown as 50% @ 20u on their website, but then disappeared . I still recall talking to the WIX tech department on the phone and I asked what the efficiency of the XP was, and the guy told me it was "proprietary".

 

[Fair enough]

The absence or removal on the website doesn't nullify the specification sheets. I get it though, we want things to be better than they're perceived. Add in incorrect or odd marketing & the consumer really struggles. But to your point, the filters you have could be different but until I see otherwise it's hard to say it's different efficiency. That's okay though, I like the One's & BOSS filters, I still use them, but it's unfortunate they've decided to quit the spec sheets as we all should be informed consumers on the basic facts of their efficiency & holding capacity.

So presence of sheets data on website means accepted, and no presence of sheets means still accepted, but not for 99+%@25? Ok then, we all have our ideas, but I still see good looking media with my own two eyes. Much better than I thought.

 

[fantastic]

So presence of sheets data on website means accepted, and no presence of sheets means still accepted, but not for 99+%@25? Ok then, we all have our ideas, but I still see good looking media with my own two eyes. Much better than I thought.

Those sheets were the latest information. It was noted that the website claim had been on there for a while. There were many here that brought it to their attention on the discrepancy for that filter. There was only one claim on one filter posted so at least for all the rest of the specification sheets posted here that was all the information we have received. Marketing can be awful & confusing.

Two conflicting ISO tests posted. One on the website showing 99%@25 for the PBL30001 and the Specification sheet showing a lower efficiency. I've always stated that we should always default to the lowest efficiency unless there is 100% no doubt it's been retested for higher efficiency. If the website was accurate then why did they send us the spec sheet showing a lower efficiency? I don't have all the answers on that filter since only Purolator knows what's going on but there was NO DATE posted when that website claim was tested. That would tell us which one is more accurate...Dates tested. I'm happy to hear that you're happy with them.

 

[ZeeOSix]

An oil filter manufacturer is going ro advertise its filters' efficiency all over the place with an efficiency percentage at an associated micron level (or a beta ratio) if it's a decent efficiency. If it's a low efficiency filter, they will say it's "99% dirt removing" (or other buzz term), but not show the associated micron number. Or they won't show anything about the efficiency. Like the WIX XP, when the tech dept guy told me the efficiency was "proprietary" it wasn't because it was high efficiency.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

An oil filter manufacturer is going ro advertise its filters' efficiency all over the place with an efficiency percentage at an associated micron level (or a beta ratio) if it's a decent efficiency. If it's a low efficiency filter, they will say it's "99% dirt removing" (or other buzz term), but not show the associated micron number. Or they won't show anything about the efficiency. Like the WIX XP, when the tech dept guy told me the efficiency was "proprietary" it wasn't because it was high efficiency.

That's why they should all be required to print the efficiency right on the box @ 20 microns. they call it consumer deception.

 

[Fair enough]

Not to mention the propensity nowadays for counterfeit junk to be sold through Amazon.
I would not trust a filter (or other things like spark plugs, serp belts, fuses, etc) via AMZ these days.

The last three Boss from Amazon were shipped directly from Purolator with an old fashioned packing slip in a plastic on the box. It seems if Amazon is the seller, it’s like buying from Walmart or other retailer.

Those sheets were the latest information. It was noted that the website claim had been on there for a while. There were many here that brought it to their attention on the discrepancy for that filter. There was only one claim on one filter posted so at least for all the rest of the specification sheets posted here that was all the information we have received. Marketing can be awful & confusing.

Two conflicting ISO tests posted. One on the website showing 99%@25 for the PBL30001 and the Specification sheet showing a lower efficiency. I've always stated that we should always default to the lowest efficiency unless there is 100% no doubt it's been retested for higher efficiency. If the website was accurate then why did they send us the spec sheet showing a lower efficiency? I don't have all the answers on that filter since only Purolator knows what's going on but there was NO DATE posted when that website claim was tested. That would tell us which one is more accurate...Dates tested. I'm happy to hear that you're happy with them.

View attachment 307083

All numbers gone now. Time to look at PG. Wait most posting here about Boss already use them. I’m happy with them because they look good to me for the purpose, and says made in USA. If that is important or not is everyone’s choice without explanation why.