Purolator confusion

[SJohnson]

Hey guys, I've tried doing a search but still can't find what I'm looking for. I see from the Purolator website that the Classic has an efficiency of 97.5 while the P1 is 99.9. What I don't understand is that at the bottom of each page they have this: *Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001. How come both of the filter pages list a PL30001, which is a P1 filter? I would think the Classic page would list an L30001. How can they list different efficiencies if they are based on the same filter? I'm only on my first cup of coffee, so maybe that's my problem

P1: http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx

Classic: http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/purolatoroilfilters.aspx

 

[Doog]

For your Honda or Buick the classic will do fine. I just get the least expensive.

 

[MinamiKotaro]

Misprint on the website. The boxes for Classics say the rating is based on the L30001.

 

[FutureDoc]

That is an odd thing, my guess is that it was human error for those typing the disclaimer into the webpage.

FYI, the difference between 97.5 and 99.9 is not "2.4%" Rather it is about 250%. Basically each 1% point in filtration is an order of magnitude. So a 99% is twice as effective as a 98%. 99.9

Now, considering how my Purolator split, I am not sure if it was operating at 99.9% effectiveness.

 

[SJohnson]

Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro
Misprint on the website. The boxes for Classics say the rating is based on the L30001.


I just went and looked at a Classic box and you're right. Doh! I told you I hadn't had my first cup of coffee yet. Thanks.

 

[SJohnson]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
That is an odd thing, my guess is that it was human error for those typing the disclaimer into the webpage.

FYI, the difference between 97.5 and 99.9 is not "2.4%" Rather it is about 250%. Basically each 1% point in filtration is an order of magnitude. So a 99% is twice as effective as a 98%. 99.9

Now, considering how my Purolator split, I am not sure if it was operating at 99.9% effectiveness.


Yeah, you're right. I forgot about that. Here's the chart you're referring to:

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

FYI, the difference between 97.5 and 99.9 is not "2.4%" Rather it is about 250%. Basically each 1% point in filtration is an order of magnitude. So a 99% is twice as effective as a 98%. 99.9


True, it really represents the difference between 100 particles (99.9% - Beta 1000) and 2,500 particles (97.5% - Beta 40) getting by for every 100,000 entering the filter. That is a 2,500% difference (25 times as many). How much difference does it make to the engine since some Asian car makers use filters rated at Beta 2 (50% @ 20 microns)? It obviously feels good to know the filter is catching more particles though, and that's why people like high efficiency filters.

Note the difference between 50% (like a Toyota OEM) and 99.9% P1 would be 100 vs 5,000 particles getting through. That's 50 times more, or 5,000% difference.

 

[FutureDoc]

I was not referencing anything specific but I will take it.

Another area where I geek out is water purification. When dealing with Reverse Osmosis filters, the XX% rejection and the pre-filter micron rating is significant. For me, 20 microns is "huge" and I would love 0.2 or 1 micron ratings but that is unreasonable for oil.

Sometimes with some oil filters, I would refer if they used nominal vs absolute ratings, it would make it easier. 50% at 20 microns might still count for a nominal rating.

As for what difference it makes, I rather have as much stuff removed from the oil as possible but I have no engineering basis for that preference.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

Sometimes with some oil filters, I would refer if they used nominal vs absolute ratings, it would make it easier. 50% at 20 microns might still count for a nominal rating.


Technically, the right way for a filter maker/seller is to show the filtering test spec along with the rating. Just spewing out "99.9% @ 20 microns" is useless unless the actual test spec is also listed, ie, "per ISO 4548-12".

And what's even more useless if for someone to spew out "99.9% efficient" without a test spec OR a micron size associated with that efficiency.

 

[SJohnson]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

Sometimes with some oil filters, I would refer if they used nominal vs absolute ratings, it would make it easier. 50% at 20 microns might still count for a nominal rating.


Technically, the right way for a filter maker/seller is to show the filtering test spec along with the rating. Just spewing out "99.9% @ 20 microns" is useless unless the actual test spec is also listed, ie, "per ISO 4548-12".

And what's even more useless if for someone to spew out "99.9% efficient" without a test spec OR a micron size associated with that efficiency.


So a few more questions. First, since Purolator list only the L30001 on the website as meeting the spec, I'm assuming since say all Classics use the same filter media, that they only list one because the cost would be too high to test every filter number, correct?

Second since Purolator doesn't list a beta ratio, is it safe to assume (there's that word again) that the 99.9 @ 20 microns would look something like this, assuming we don't now the first number: 2/1000 = ?/20. Is that correct or am I missing something?

Now looking at the Wix site, their filter cross reference for the L30001 is 51515 shown here:

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=51515

Why do they show both nominal and the beta ratio and why is the first number of the beta 6 and not 21? Perhaps I'm confusing the nominal # and the first beta number.

Here's another one for a Harley:

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=57148

It shows both nominal and beta but this time the nominal # is lower than the first number of the beta; 5 vs 6. I don't understand this. To be honest, I liken my knowledge of filtration to that of a grain of sand on the beach. There's a lot out there I don't know. Sorry for the long post, but any info you guys can help me with would be great.

Thanks.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SJohnson
So a few more questions. First, since Purolator list only the L30001 on the website as meeting the spec, I'm assuming since say all Classics use the same filter media, that they only list one because the cost would be too high to test every filter number, correct?


Yes, it would cost too much to test each and every filter model, so they use one that they know will give them a good efficiency results. Theory is that larger sized filters might tend to come in with a little better beta ratio/efficiency result.

Originally Posted By: SJohnson
Second since Purolator doesn't list a beta ratio, is it safe to assume (there's that word again) that the 99.9 @ 20 microns would look something like this, assuming we don't now the first number: 2/1000 = ?/20. Is that correct or am I missing something?


Correct ... if Purolator was to show the beta ratio for their P1 at 99.9% @ 20 microns then it would be:

Beta Ratio: 2/1000 = ??/20

The reason for the ?? is because they don't list a particle micron size for Beta 2, which is at 50% efficiency.

Realize that the blue numbers go together, and the red numbers go together in the format that WIX uses - for anyone not familiar with WIX beta format.

Example:
Beta Ratio: 2/20 = 6/20

The right side of the equation is the two efficiencies (Beta 2 (50%) and Beta 20 (95%), and the right side is the two matching particle sizes (6 microns & 20 microns) associated with those efficiencies.

Originally Posted By: SJohnson
Now looking at the Wix site, their filter cross reference for the L30001 is 51515 shown here:

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=51515

Why do they show both nominal and the beta ratio and why is the first number of the beta 6 and not 21? Perhaps I'm confusing the nominal # and the first beta number.


WIX site linked above shows:
Beta Ratio: 2/20 = 6/20

Which means:
50% efficient at 6 microns ... and,
95% @ 20 microns

I think the reason why the Beta shows an efficiency of 50% @ 6 microns vs the "Nominal Micron Rating = 21 microns" is because of the testing standard used to achieve those numbers. The 50% @ 20 microns is probably the ISO multi-pass test whereas the nominal rating is a single pass test.

 

[SJohnson]

ZeeOsix, you've been a lot of help. Thanks. One more question. This Wix filter is their cross reference when I type in PL30001 on their site. So I guess it's their version of a P1:

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=51515XP

What I find weird is they list a beta but they only show: B2=20. If I understand this stuff correctly, that means 50% at 20 microns. That doesn't seem like that good of a filter if I'm reading it correctly. Am I? Why didn't they just list nominal?

Thanks again.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SJohnson
ZeeOsix, you've been a lot of help. Thanks. One more question. This Wix filter is their cross reference when I type in PL30001 on their site. So I guess it's their version of a P1:

http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=51515XP

What I find weird is they list a beta but they only show: B2=20. If I understand this stuff correctly, that means 50% at 20 microns. That doesn't seem like that good of a filter if I'm reading it correctly. Am I? Why didn't they just list nominal?

Thanks again.


Yes, B2=20 means 50% @ 20 microns. That WIX is a full synthetic wire backed filter. That could be a misprint, as it seems like a pretty bad beta ratio for any synthetic filter. I'd try calling WIX customer service line if they have one and see if they can verify that listed beta spec for that XP filter.

 

[SJohnson]

Thanks again for all your help. I've never used a Wix filter, so whether or not the info on their site about that one filter is correct or not is really a big deal to me. It just had me curious.