Most Boss models are 99% >46u. Check the Spec Sheets ... many posted here over the last few months.
The great thing about Purolator is you can get the specification sheet for your specific filter to answer that question. Have a specific part number? Send them an email to ask about it. While your at it grab the classic & One for the same part number for yourself but then if you can post them on BITOG to help others...great! What you'll learn is there's no single "Official" micron rating with any filter company no matter how much some here try to tell you otherwise. You get that data with Purolator.
I've not seen all the spec sheets for all Boss filters have you? Probably no different then a Toyota filter efficiency from prior posts. Boss filter test here showed 99%@34um, better then spec'd... Is that really "terrible"?You do but it’s terrible.
Compared to others in the test ... yeah. Just a quick look of the efficiency vs particle size ISO test data graphs shows the big difference. "Terrible" can be objective, or subjective ... I tend to look at measured performance numbers objectively.
I never claimed they were here so not sure why you say that. Look at the thread title. This is a Purolator thread after all...
Says the guy who just ran a Purolator for almost 6k.
read the rest of the thread, fleet vehicles get whatever the bundle at AAP is. my personal vehicles get OG ultra media or endurance filters
But you surely spoke highly of your c & p didn't you. I or anyone else didn't throw rocks at you for that like you did here to me now did they?
i’ve spoken highly of purorlator filters, the construction is excellent with very nice cans. if only they could make something with efficient media.
Um, they do.
They have other efficient filters period. @Robvette posted one on here recently that was 99%@17um. Plenty of One's that have good efficiencies around 99%@25um. Purolator offers excellent & efficient filters no matter how much you or others try to discredit them. Same old tune with your all's Purolator hate just different days.
Whenever someone drags out the tired old "hate" label it makes me wonder how old they are. Sounds like my daughter when she was about 10.
Happy to hear you can see the data first hand & draw your own conclusion. The other fanboi's will personally attack our dissent all the time It's pathetic. Add in the fact that Purolator's have a much more model filter availability for reinforced media than Fram's.After reading this thread, I asked Purolator for the specification sheets on a couple of 14610 filters I was interested in as well. Got em within a day. I find that impressive. While the filters were different than those posted earlier, the data was almost identical. Sooo .... I sent an email to Fram asking for the same info on a couple of their 7317 filters I'm interested in as well.
All I got in response was: "The efficiency numbers for these filters are not much different, the TG is 99% @ 20 microns and the FE is listed at 99%+ meaning it is fractionally higher than 99%, but we do not have the exact spec listed. " Compared to Purolator's forthrightness, I do not find Fram's response impressive.
