Not per the ISO 4548-12 specs from Mann-Hummel. But if you think looking at light spots and smelling the media is a better test to measure efficiency, then go for it.
Purolator Boss rated at 99% @20 microns (see Mod note in thread text)
- Thread starter That John dude
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 1,161
Not fair to say the chemical smell has anything to do with efficiency, obviously it doesn’t.Not per the ISO 4548-12 specs from Mann-Hummel. But if you think looking at light spots and smelling the media is a better test to measure efficiency, then go for it.
Efficiency means the end result, what particles do we have in our oil while driving, not only on a bench with high concentrations of particles added. It seems people forget about circulations of the oil. A 50%@20 micron filter still filters the 20 micron particles. Cars now have better air filters, the oil is better, there shouldn’t be so much added debris every second unless something is wrong. Circulation is probably why we see filters like Roki having swiss cheese media, and the designers know it and deem it fine.
I am not saying the Boss is not a high efficiency filter in the lab.
Bye have a nice life whatever is left. Whatever is left is shorter than before. Use those MG Select, what is it my business. Good choice.
Everyone knows vague “Dirt Removal Power” claims are greatly preferable to any actual ISO testing. Get with the program folks.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 1,161
Many filters have no ISO rating and are loved. Some show many holes in the media and still loved. Others just state the rating and everyone believes the rating. Sometimes no test method is given, and the rating still holds. Everyone is free to use the program they want, it’s supposed to be a public place. Otherwise it is just a club of like minded thinkers.
Clock of life is ticking down here, time to pick a filter.
Clock of life is ticking down here, time to pick a filter.
Field testing of filters show that the less efficiency filters resulted in dirtier oil (the "end result") and more engine wear ... so it's not really true that the oil will be just as clean in the end, but take more reticulations of the sump to get there. It's another misconception about oil filters thinking that regardless of the filter efficiency, the sump will "evidentially" be at the same cleanliness level in the end, which is what you're basically saying here.
Only 50% of them going into the filter. The other 50% goes through the oiling system.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 1,161
The oil say circulates fully every 20 seconds. How many particles are left after 5 minutes? Start with 1000 particles in. 1000/2, 500/2, 250/2,125/2, 62.5/2, 31.25/2, call it 16/2, 8/2, 4/2, 2/2, 1/2 and that is no particles 20 microns or more are circulating, without adding more. So 10 circulations and all 20 micron and above are gone. Assume perfect 50%@20 filtration each pass.
How many new particles are added per minute in a clean running modern engine with an excellent air filter? Figure the engine runs for one mile in one minute, so miles=minutes . In three mins 20 secs or 3.3 miles all 20 micron are filtered.
I am not thinking the Boss is in this category but much better. This would be a “rock catcher” oil filter example. Which is wrong wording in itself as it’s 50%@20 microns.
The misconception is the amount of particles being added per 20 second circulation interval into the oil.
Anyway Im using the topic filters I bought on sale and have no worries about them. You aren’t using the topic filters.
You do realize the running engines are constantly generating debris, and debris is added to the oil constantly at some level. So your analogy taking may recirculations to clean-up the oil only works when there is zero addition of debris. Like said, fact is that more efficient oil filters used in field studies showed cleaner UOA PCs and less engine wear. So in real world use it doesn't work like you imagine to satisfy your decision to use pretty inefficient filter.
You use what you want ... I really don't care, and I'll use what I want, and everyone will use what want. You keep claiming the Boss is way better than the published ISO 4514-12 efficiency specs, yet you have zero proof of your claim. As long any people post false information I'll chime in and say why it's false. This board is about correct information, not misconceptions.
Last edited:
She doesn’t, but her pool boy does on his ‘86 Toyota pickup.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 1,161
Thanks, I did, but nowhere near as hard as another poster. So it’s all settled now, anyone who would never buy a Boss still isn’t. Anyone who would still is.
However, one poster is making technical sense whereas the other one is doing nothing of the sort.
Doubt it. Anybody who was buying the Boss because they thought it was a good filter has now seen it’s at least twice as bad as some filters that cost 1/4 as much.
Unfortunately his efficiency ranking and numbers don’t match official ISO 4548-12 numbers despite following some of the controls.
^^^ That's been discussed in many threads. They show the Boss 3rd in efficiency (along side filters that are ISO efficiency of 99% @ 20u), yet the manufacturer of the Boss says the ISO efficiency is 99% @ 46u. This raises a red flag on the ranking of the Boss by BR's test.
This thread has run its course. Lock time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked