Purolator Boss PBL24011 Cut Open

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
Oh you guys are just living in an egotistical bubble. You actually believe the other 99.99999 percent of the world cares or even knows about anythung anyone says on bitog lol.
Efficiencey ratings are are highly overated around here anyway. 99% at 50 will keep your engines alive as long as 99% @10.

Probably frequent oil changes with no filteration would result in equal longevity.


I think I understand now. Just another one for the ignore list. Was pretty clear after going back through your previous posts
you know where the ignore button is by now. If you cant handle opposing opinions to your own i guess use it
 
I stuck one the Boss's on my Jeep when they first arrived at work. Normally I'd just run the PureOne but figured I'd see what the Boss could do. Jeep is a 5.2L with 250k miles and runs house brand 5W-40 since it's a winter beater. I'll have to cut the Boss open this summer when it's due for a change.
 
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
Oh you guys are just living in an egotistical bubble. You actually believe the other 99.99999 percent of the world cares or even knows about anythung anyone says on bitog lol.
Efficiencey ratings are are highly overated around here anyway. 99% at 50 will keep your engines alive as long as 99% @10.

Probably frequent oil changes with no filteration would result in equal longevity.


IMHO, this here says it all. You clearly don't realize how important good filtration is in modern engines.

I want my engine to last at least 300,000 miles.. not the 100,000 miles that they used to when oil filtration was young. You can't expect that to happen when the filter is only reliably capturing the 50 micron particles and bigger.

I don't think egotism comes into this argument. It's about realistic expectations. I can buy a Fram Ultra for under $10 which WILL capture the 20 micron particles @ 99% - Why shouldn't I expect the Boss, which is a newly-designed product and sells for more $$, to at least match that?

I absolutley understsnd the logic in not letting my oil get so used or contaminated it can no longercontinue to hold those contaminants in suspinsion.
Do you believe that our newer rngines are lasting longer bevause of filteration? Not because of better oil or better designs etc?
 
There is something to be said for the "who cares about the filter" crowd. I have indeed witnessed plenty of engines go the distance on filters that may be sheer rock catchers.

My old Grand Cherokee got some cheesy Mity-something filters for the first 189K of its existence and is still kicking at 232K, with no sign of blow-by.

For me, it's more like, why the heck not? Few dollars more, better stuff? Hard to turn down.

There is, however, something to be said about demanding top quality for a product with a very premium price.
 
The Champ e core looks like a good filter, "use with confidence." Both of the used cars I have bought in the past ten years came with e cores from a fast lube, and engines ran quiet and smooth. E cores are the ones to use folks.
57.gif
 
FWIW, some of the older Onan marine gensets are known for lasting in the realm of 5k hours without needing a rebuild, and that's with no oil filter at all.

So super-fine filtration isn't necessarily required to get good service life out of an engine, although I'd think that assuming the engine is being fed good oil, etc. it'll absolutely last longer if the oil is kept more free of particles.

And given the choice, I'd definitely use the finer filter (provided it flows adequately for the engine, which generally isn't too hard to find). If nothing else, it would just give me more peace of mind.
 
I've never seen such bickering over a filter that no one has even used yet.Wait awhile for some used ones to surface.
It does look like some changes were done,so who knows.
I won't pay more than an Ultra that's for sure.
Plastic backing is not better than metal.
I do like the new paint on all the filters.something different from a visual point but it's whats inside that counts.
For me,I will just wait and see.
 
Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
Efficiencey ratings are are highly overated around here anyway. 99% at 50 will keep your engines alive as long as 99% @10.

I already agreed to that, and you're not going to find a lot of people arguing the point, although your cutoff points might be up for some debate. The important thing, at least to me, is value for one's money. The Fram Ultra is not a good value proposition for my F-150, at double to triple the price of a Wix 51515. It would make more sense for my G37, with the difference in price between the Wix and Fram Ultra being minimal. Now, the Fram orange can is horribly overpriced for its construction up here, and we know we have to watch dealer prices. I will buy something with decent filtration if the price and construction are reasonable. Do note that was one reason I was using Bosch Premiums on my G37 for a rather extended period of time. When construction went down the toilet and I ran out of free Hastings, I went back to something else, with less efficiency, and a bit more cost, such as paid for Hastings or Wix.

In any case, my previously made points still stand, and I asked a hard question, and you didn't have an answer. Again: Purolator used to trumpet its efficiency specifications, particularly for the P1 and the Bosch Premium. Now, we hear nothing about efficiency specs. They were important before, but now they're not? Why?
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
Efficiencey ratings are are highly overated around here anyway. 99% at 50 will keep your engines alive as long as 99% @10.

I already agreed to that, and you're not going to find a lot of people arguing the point, although your cutoff points might be up for some debate. The important thing, at least to me, is value for one's money. The Fram Ultra is not a good value proposition for my F-150, at double to triple the price of a Wix 51515. It would make more sense for my G37, with the difference in price between the Wix and Fram Ultra being minimal. Now, the Fram orange can is horribly overpriced for its construction up here, and we know we have to watch dealer prices. I will buy something with decent filtration if the price and construction are reasonable. Do note that was one reason I was using Bosch Premiums on my G37 for a rather extended period of time. When construction went down the toilet and I ran out of free Hastings, I went back to something else, with less efficiency, and a bit more cost, such as paid for Hastings or Wix.

In any case, my previously made points still stand, and I asked a hard question, and you didn't have an answer. Again: Purolator used to trumpet its efficiency specifications, particularly for the P1 and the Bosch Premium. Now, we hear nothing about efficiency specs. They were important before, but now they're not? Why?

I dunno, im just a consumer in this paticular market.
May i suggest thst you contact somone affiliated with purolator to answer that questiin for you?
 
I'm not interested enough to call them, for a few reasons. I'm not convinced that the tearing issue has gone away. And secondly, they have almost zero interest in the Canadian market, so I'm not going out of my way to hunt for their product; the new stuff won't be available online up here for a while, and I'll never know if it's new or old until I buy, so no sale, and the prices have gone up dramatically, so no sale again. So, 50% efficiency or 99.9% is only academic for me.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm not interested enough to call them, for a few reasons. I'm not convinced that the tearing issue has gone away. And secondly, they have almost zero interest in the Canadian market, so I'm not going out of my way to hunt for their product; the new stuff won't be available online up here for a while, and I'll never know if it's new or old until I buy, so no sale, and the prices have gone up dramatically, so no sale again. So, 50% efficiency or 99.9% is only academic for me.

Ok so why are we even discussing the matter of effiencey if you dont care? You brought it to the conversation?
 
I haven't been on BITOG in a while, but I see not much has changed... still juvenile back and forths triggered by a troll or two.

Back on track. Nice looking filter. Definitely a step in the right direction for Purolator. Looking forward to seeing some real world usage C&P's!! Efficiency is irrelevant to me. In the grand scheme it makes little difference.
 
Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
Ok so why are we even discussing the matter of effiencey if you dont care? You brought it to the conversation?

No, I didn't bring it to the conversation at all. It started before I joined the thread. And, I didn't say I don't care. All things equal, I prefer a good filtration, but I'm not going to go nuts hunting it down or spend a bunch of money hunting it down. It's one consideration among a few.

The 50% versus 99% comment being only academic for me is because getting a Purolator here is a big hassle right now. And, given that the price has gone up in a big way, and I have no idea whether or not I'd be getting a new Purolator or an older one, and I have no idea whether or not the tearing issue has been solved, and that I'd have to order it online, there are a whack of hurdles to be cleared before I could even use a Purolator filter, much less worry about its efficiency. When the only option is to buy a Purolator at an inflated price, online, sight unseen, and have absolutely no idea what I'm actually getting, well, you get the idea - no thanks.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
Ok so why are we even discussing the matter of effiencey if you dont care? You brought it to the conversation?

No, I didn't bring it to the conversation at all. It started before I joined the thread. And, I didn't say I don't care. All things equal, I prefer a good filtration, but I'm not going to go nuts hunting it down or spend a bunch of money hunting it down. It's one consideration among a few.

The 50% versus 99% comment being only academic for me is because getting a Purolator here is a big hassle right now. And, given that the price has gone up in a big way, and I have no idea whether or not I'd be getting a new Purolator or an older one, and I have no idea whether or not the tearing issue has been solved, and that I'd have to order it online, there are a whack of hurdles to be cleared before I could even use a Purolator filter, much less worry about its efficiency. When the only option is to buy a Purolator at an inflated price, online, sight unseen, and have absolutely no idea what I'm actually getting, well, you get the idea - no thanks.

I see. Thanks for the autobiography.
 
I sincerely doubt that Purolator would go any meaningful step backwards when it comes to filtration efficiency compared to their old lines.

Anyway, I think it looks good. I'd love to see a few opened up after a decent interval. But I doubt they will hit stores at a lower price than Ultras so until then I have no reason to try one.
 
Originally Posted By: skaughtz
I sincerely doubt that Purolator would go any meaningful step backwards when it comes to filtration efficiency compared to their old lines.


If they didn't go backwards, they would still be open to showing what the efficiency is at micron size X like they use to. And I'm betting if you contacted them they couldn't or most likely wouldn't really say at want micron size their advertised 99% would be at.

I think I'll email them as see what they say.
 
I see that you can't even contact Purolator/Mann-Hummel by email anymore - only by phone. So I left a voice mail with their Product Engineer to see if he can give me efficiency numbers with a micron size, and if they are using the same ISO test spec as before.

If they divulged the info I will pass it on.
 
It must be a new test, 99% DRP, no more microns. Because if they say 99% there had to be a test, and since no microns, it is a new test using DRP. Like some toilets now use a flushing power scale with a dial and needle, 10 is best. It's all very simple and obvious which filter has the most dirt removal power now. If Fram states 99% @ 20 microns, why that is just fancy for 99% DRP to the average smart shopper.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I'm betting they are 99.9% @ 30 microns which isn't great but just a guess since they've done that before.

Lol your hoping you mean.
Haha, the fram fanatics are getting scared. Your holding on to 1 last spec.,praying that its either not great or is never revealed.
This is so fun!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

funflyer
New Purolator LX4967 Cut Open
2 3
Replies
41
Views
1K
Hootbro
C
What do you make of these Purolator PBL24011 filters.....not imporessed!
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
ZeeOSix
Hootbro
CarQuest Red (Purolator) R85334 Cut Open
Replies
9
Views
802
Hootbro
B
Purolator One PL10241 - cut open
Replies
7
Views
874
baomo
F
Wix XP & Purolator BOSS Cut Open
Replies
2
Views
2K
fantastic
Back
Top Bottom