Purolator Boss PBL20195, One PL20195 Specification Sheet

[twX]

What are the parameters associated with that "Nominal Flow Rate" spec (oil viscosity, delta-p at what flow)?

The nominal flow rate isn't the result of a test. It's selected by the filter manufacturer or dictated by their customer. ISO 4548-12 seems to allow it to be between 2 L/min and 600 L/min. The dP and filtration efficiency tests are then done at the selected nominal flow rate.

All Purolator BOSS spec sheets I've seen test the filters at 25 L/min with 24 cST oil, regardless of the filter size or application. All PurolatorOne filters seem to be tested at 11.35 L/min (exactly 3.00 GPM) with 24 cST oil. They may have selected these values since they're pretty typical for automotive engines, are compatible with their test equiment, and are low enough that even their smallest filters won't bypass any oil at these standard flow rates at the test viscosity.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The nominal flow rate isn't the result of a test. It's selected by the filter manufacturer or dictated by their customer. ISO 4548-12 seems to allow it to be between 2 L/min and 600 L/min. The dP and filtration efficiency tests are then done at the selected nominal flow rate.

All Purolator BOSS spec sheets I've seen test the filters at 25 L/min with 24 cST oil, regardless of the filter size or application. All PurolatorOne filters seem to be tested at 11.35 L/min (exactly 3.00 GPM) with 24 cST oil. They may have selected these values since they're pretty typical for automotive engines, are compatible with their test equiment, and are low enough that even their smallest filters won't bypass any oil at these standard flow rates at the test viscosity.

That makes sense once all the pieces on the spec sheet are put together. But I would have called it "Nominal test flow rate" to clarify it.

Now the "Max Flow Rate" (ie, 7-9 GPM) spec on WIX's website is another debate since they don't give any corresponding oil viscosity or dP with that "Max Flow Rate" spec.

 

[fantastic]

The Fram Ultra, Titanium and Endurance (and other similar synthetic/synthetic blend media filters) all have better efficiency and are all rated for 15-20K or more miles.

That's what the marketing department says. I need more data to find my own conclusion on that however.

Is 50% efficiency at 22u considered "premium"?

You know how they're marketing the Boss line.

@fantastic ... since you seem to have a good contact at Purolator/M+H, could you ask him what the "Nominal Flow Rate" in the spec sheets is based on? What are the parameters associated with that "Nominal Flow Rate" spec (oil viscosity, delta-p at what flow)?

I can ask first thing in the morning. When I hear something I'll post it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I can ask first thing in the morning. When I hear something I'll post it.

Already been resolved ... see posts 21 and 22. Thanks anyway. Now if you could get WIX to tell you what their "Max Flow Rate" is based on that would be a miracle.

 

[ZeeOSix]

That's what the marketing department says. I need more data to find my own conclusion on that however.

I have seen nothing that says Fram is not truthful about their filters efficiency. If anything, they almost seem conservative based on Ascent's ISO testing (ie, tested better than claimed by Fram).

 

[fantastic]

Already been resolved ... see posts 21 and 22. Thanks anyway. Now if you could get WIX to tell you what their "Max Flow Rate" is based on that would be a miracle.

I have seen nothing that says Fram is not truthful about their filters efficiency. If anything, they almost seem conservative based on Ascent's ISO testing (ie, tested better than claimed by Fram).

I tend to agree with your position too. It would be "Better" if we could get specific data though. I still buy Fram's & will continue to do so because they have great construction too but it's equally nice to see the specific efficiencies from Purolator as true evidence. That last part I'm supporting wholeheartedly if that wasn't already apparent. And they could be just using some sort of data set that matches up with the type of media they have like you mentioned & I'm ok with that too. I just disagree that Purolator's is "poor" efficiencies as well & I know that's not a popular position to have here on this board. What can I say I'm just a half glass full type so I can see the diamond in the rough with the Puro's.

 

[fantastic]

[QUOTE="I If a filter isn't efficient, then time on it is a moot point and it becomes worse the longer the filter is in use, like I already said due to larger particles not being captured and spending more time in circulation. No one has ever argued they want a less efficient filter in a mainstream passenger application....that literally boggles the mind.
[/QUOTE]
You still have not provided evidence of any comparable filter brand, to this Purolator, with better efficiencies. I'm all for a more efficient filter as we all are. I'm just waiting for the data to be sent over. What do you know that I don't?

 

[kschachn]

I tend to agree with your position too. It would be "Better" if we could get specific data though. I still buy Fram's & will continue to do so because they have great construction too but it's equally nice to see the specific efficiencies from Purolator as true evidence. That last part I'm supporting wholeheartedly if that wasn't already apparent. And they could be just using some sort of data set that matches up with the type of media they have like you mentioned & I'm ok with that too. I just disagree that Purolator's is "poor" efficiencies as well & I know that's not a popular position to have here on this board. What can I say I'm just a half glass full type so I can see the diamond in the rough with the Puro's.

A diamond with poor color and multiple inclusions

 

[alarmguy]

You still have not provided evidence of any comparable filter brand, to this Purolator, with better efficiencies. I'm all for a more efficient filter as we all are. I'm just waiting for the data to be sent over. What do you know that I don't?

I too like facts and agree, what's more is most filters at any price "meet manufacturers warranty requirements"
More or less marketing gets in the head of people and they ignore nor ask for the test data.

Not that I am endorsing what I did with our Mazda 2012 (Skyactive Engine) but we bought it when it was 1 possibly 2 years old. It's a secondary car for whatever running around town at times. now 11 years old, body still in perfect shape.
Anyway, we read all the horrible things about fuel dilution etc. All I know is I always used any 5w30 oil and believe it or not the same Cheap "shop" Puralator filter for a very long time now. I bought a case of 12 and now down to two left.

11 years old, low mileage of 95,000 miles, car never needed a repair and to this day never needs make up oil.

 

[fantastic]

I too like facts and agree, what's more is most filters at any price "meet manufacturers warranty requirements"
More or less marketing gets in the head of people and they ignore nor ask for the test data.

Not that I am endorsing what I did with our Mazda 2012 (Skyactive Engine) but we bought it when it was 1 possibly 2 years old. It's a secondary car for whatever running around town at times. now 11 years old, body still in perfect shape.
Anyway, we read all the horrible things about fuel dilution etc. All I know is I always used any 5w30 oil and believe it or not the same Cheap "shop" Puralator filter for a very long time now. I bought a case of 12 and now down to two left.

11 years old, low mileage of 95,000 miles, car never needed a repair and to this day never needs make up oil.

View attachment 187260

It's like you took the words out of my head! These marketing dept's have done well for the masses & lead folks to believe everyone of their filters is better than the next brands w/o solid proof. I'm just getting tired of hearing Purolator filters are the "Worst" w/o anyone showing a comparable filter that has been tested w/better efficiencies. They're going by the marketing jargon as their "Proof". How can they say "Worst" w/o any proof of what is "Better" on a similar filter.

I'm under the believe that 99%@46 microns is not bad for a 20k run on a filter. Until I see concrete proof otherwise that's my position & it makes folks head gaskets explode. I've now been told I have a "Weird bug", "disconnect", "Delusional" apparently I said "Fram's a liar", all in the hopes of trying to discredit my position and I've still not seen anything concrete from them & that's why they've resorted to their tactics. They've got nothing... Some here act like if you don't post every word of their post test or their own feelings position they'll come out & do what they do. I have an unpopular view about Purolator & you see the smoke show . These spec sheets have been absolutely great in what they provide us consumers. But as you see there are plenty here to discredit them.

Anyways, I agree with your position that most would pass the OEM warranty requirements. That's how a lot of these filter manufacturers know where to start is by doing reverse engineering on the OEM filters. They know full well how to make a solid filter. We just have these extended mileage ones now for convenience. I've been looking at those tech filters but I can get the ones or classics a bit easier so I went with them. You have first hand experience of what a cost effective filter can do for the avg engine. I don't think some give them enough credit mostly due to being sold on the marketing but of course they'll need to get their debit cards out to pay more.

I'm trying to get as many of these spec sheets as I can posted on here for others to make an informed buying decision.

 

[alarmguy]

It's like you took the words out of my head! These marketing dept's have done well for the masses & lead folks to believe everyone of their filters is better than the next brands w/o solid proof. I'm just getting tired of hearing Purolator filters are the "Worst" w/o anyone showing a comparable filter that has been tested w/better efficiencies. They're going by the marketing jargon as their "Proof". How can they say "Worst" w/o any proof of what is "Better" on a similar filter.

I'm under the believe that 99%@46 microns is not bad for a 20k run on a filter. Until I see concrete proof otherwise that's my position & it makes folks head gaskets explode. I've now been told I have a "Weird bug", "disconnect", "Delusional" apparently I said "Fram's a liar", all in the hopes of trying to discredit my position and I've still not seen anything concrete from them & that's why they've resorted to their tactics. They've got nothing... Some here act like if you don't post every word of their post test or their own feelings position they'll come out & do what they do. I have an unpopular view about Purolator & you see the smoke show . These spec sheets have been absolutely great in what they provide us consumers. But as you see there are plenty here to discredit them.

Anyways, I agree with your position that most would pass the OEM warranty requirements. That's how a lot of these filter manufacturers know where to start is by doing reverse engineering on the OEM filters. They know full well how to make a solid filter. We just have these extended mileage ones now for convenience. I've been looking at those tech filters but I can get the ones or classics a bit easier so I went with them. You have first hand experience of what a cost effective filter can do for the avg engine. I don't think some give them enough credit mostly due to being sold on the marketing but of course they'll need to get their debit cards out to pay more.

I'm trying to get as many of these spec sheets as I can posted on here for others to make an informed buying decision.

Most of the population have no clue about the amount of physiology corporations use through all available means to get you to buy their product. The best manipulators win. This is just a tiny sample/summary of ways and sources of information. It's REALLY fascinating and with the internet it's a whole new level of manipulation.

Marketing Psychology: 10 Revealing Principles of Human Behavior

Brush up on these psychological principles of human behavior to help improve your marketing.

blog.hubspot.com

 

[I<3oil]

You still have not provided evidence of any comparable filter brand, to this Purolator, with better efficiencies. I'm all for a more efficient filter as we all are. I'm just waiting for the data to be sent over. What do you know that I don't?

ZeeOhSix already posted about it. We also have an Ascent Filtration thread showing data through testing. If you don't know the answer by now, then no one is going to be able to give you the answer you want.

 

[I<3oil]

Is 50% efficiency at 22u considered "premium"?

In Purolator's and the OP's minds, it is.

 

[fantastic]

[QUOTE="I ZeeOhSix already posted about it. We also have an Ascent Filtration thread showing data through testing. If you don't know the answer by now, then no one is going to be able to give you the answer you want.
[/QUOTE]
If you are talking about Fram like I said that is an old filter test of one of their old OG ultra filters. Great older OG ultra data for that one filter! However, They've since revamped their oil filter line up & that may no longer be the case even on that filter model anymore.

But that is all the evidence you bring to prove your point across the whole line of Fram filters? That may pass your buy-in test but some of us are skeptical about that performance across the board. Which is reasonable since there is no data that proves otherwise. How am I to "know the answer by now" if there is data lacking on specific filters I want to run?

[QUOTE="I In Purolator's and the OP's minds, it is.
[/QUOTE]
But what is going on, in your mind, with your lack of evidence for specific filters to prove their ALL efficient? You say "Here's this one filter test to prove they're all efficient" but that's not always how it works. Purolator positions this filter as a "premium filter" & that's a fact no matter times you or zee try to discredit that.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If you are talking about Fram like I said that is an old filter test of one of their old OG ultra filters. Great older OG ultra data for that one filter! However, They've since revamped their oil filter line up & that may no longer be the case even on that filter model anymore.

The point is that a Fram Ultra was tested by a certified independent lab per ISO 4548-12, and the test results showed that Fram's efficiency claim for the Ultra was in alignment with the independent testing. Ascent's testing also showed which filters in the group were not so efficient, and they actually came in a bit worse than the company claims of efficiency on those filters.

But that is all the evidence you bring to prove your point across the whole line of Fram filters? That may pass your buy-in test but some of us are skeptical about that performance across the board. Which is reasonable since there is no data that proves otherwise. How am I to "know the answer by now" if there is data lacking on specific filters I want to run?

Do you have evidence besides skepticism that Fram's efficiency claims are false? Do you realize that if a range of filter sizes (small, medium and large sizes) in the same line of filters like the Ultra or Endurance are efficiency tested, and the average of those 3 filters come in at 99% @20u, then it shows that the size difference in the filters doesn't have much impact on that filter media design. Pointing out facts isn't "discrediting" ... it's pointing out facts. The spec sheets show the facts, and you believe the spec sheets, right?

I know way back that for the PureOne filters, Purolator said their 4 smallest spin-ons were 99% @ 40u (it was right on the box - but never shown on their website), while their giant filter was 99% @ 20u. Have you had M+H send you some spec sheets for the same filter line but in a small, medium and large filter size so you can see how the spec sheet efficiency compares between sizes? Some media efficiency performance may be much more effected by total media are vs others media types ... and it's because of the efficiency vs loading dP factor as has been discussed before (see post 18). Depending on the media, a filter with less media area can experience more dP with the same debris loading factor, and cause the media to slough debris downstream and be less efficient.

But what is going on, in your mind, with your lack of evidence for specific filters to prove their ALL efficient? You say "Here's this one filter test to prove they're all efficient" but that's not always how it works. Purolator positions this filter as a "premium filter" & that's a fact no matter times you or zee try to discredit that.

Obviously, "Premium" in Purolator's mind doesn't mean very efficient. Why is it a "fact" that it's a "Premium" filter? Because Purolator says so?

 

[ZeeOSix]

I tend to agree with your position too. It would be "Better" if we could get specific data though. I still buy Fram's & will continue to do so because they have great construction too but it's equally nice to see the specific efficiencies from Purolator as true evidence. That last part I'm supporting wholeheartedly if that wasn't already apparent. And they could be just using some sort of data set that matches up with the type of media they have like you mentioned & I'm ok with that too.

If Fram was just using sort of data that matches up with the type of media, they wouldn't have based the efficiency claim on 3 different ISO 4548-12 tested sized filters to see how the size impacts the efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, how do you know that the Purolator/M+H spec sheets reflect actual physical efficiency testing on every oil filter model they make? Those efficiency specs could also be derived from an accurate performance model based on them ISO testing a few models to build and accurate model. You should ask M+H if they physical ISO 4548-12 test every one of the 100+ filter models they make, or is some of the spec sheet data modeled? - would be interesting to see what they say about that.

I just disagree that Purolator's is "poor" efficiencies as well & I know that's not a popular position to have here on this board. What can I say I'm just a half glass full type so I can see the diamond in the rough with the Puro's.

What would you consider "poor" efficiency if you think 50% @ 22u is good?

 

[ZeeOSix]

You still have not provided evidence of any comparable filter brand, to this Purolator, with better efficiencies. I'm all for a more efficient filter as we all are. I'm just waiting for the data to be sent over. What do you know that I don't?

Ascent had a Purolator Boss in the test group of 5 filters. All of those filters were specified for the same engine, so apples-to-apples for the size factor effect. There were 3 in the group that were more efficient than the Boss. The Boss was better than the WIX XP above 20u however.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If you are talking about Fram like I said that is an old filter test of one of their old OG ultra filters. Great older OG ultra data for that one filter! However, They've since revamped their oil filter line up & that may no longer be the case even on that filter model anymore.

The new non-wire backed Ultra efficiency is still shown at 99+% @ 20u, based on 3 filter sizes (XG8A, XG3387A and XG4967). Do you think they are now lying about that efficiency claim when Ascents testing showed they were not lying about the wire-backed Ultra? Why would they do that all of a sudden. You do realize that companies don't really get by lying about performance claims these days like they might have in the past. Other filter companies cross-check each others claims all the time. Fram has tested competitor's filters in their ISO lab to see how they test against the manufacturer's claims.

 

[I<3oil]

If you are talking about Fram like I said that is an old filter test of one of their old OG ultra filters. Great older OG ultra data for that one filter! However, They've since revamped their oil filter line up & that may no longer be the case even on that filter model anymore.

But that is all the evidence you bring to prove your point across the whole line of Fram filters? That may pass your buy-in test but some of us are skeptical about that performance across the board. Which is reasonable since there is no data that proves otherwise. How am I to "know the answer by now" if there is data lacking on specific filters I want to run?


But what is going on, in your mind, with your lack of evidence for specific filters to prove their ALL efficient? You say "Here's this one filter test to prove they're all efficient" but that's not always how it works. Purolator positions this filter as a "premium filter" & that's a fact no matter times you or zee try to discredit that.

Where did I said "here's one filter test to prove they're all efficient?" Nowhere.

And Purolator can bill their filter as premium all they want. Just like I can bill my opinion as premium. The company stating its premium means literally diddly squat. Does Purolator state what makes it premium? Or what premium is even defined as for them?

This discussion is basically over as you're just trolling and sticking your fingers in your ears singing, "la la la la la." Good luck on things.

 

[fantastic]

[QUOTE="I In Purolator's and the OP's minds, it is.
[/QUOTE]
This is you trolling..
[QUOTE="I Where did I said "here's one filter test to prove they're all efficient?" Nowhere.

And Purolator can bill their filter as premium all they want. Just like I can bill my opinion as premium. The company stating its premium means literally diddly squat. Does Purolator state what makes it premium? Or what premium is even defined as for them?

This discussion is basically over as you're just trolling and sticking your fingers in your ears singing, "la la la la la." Good luck on things.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="I ZeeOhSix already posted about it. We also have an Ascent Filtration thread showing data through testing. If you don't know the answer by now, then no one is going to be able to give you the answer you want.
[/QUOTE]

Just asking for data to back up what you claim. I'm open to all data & open ears. Still waiting for proof...