Purolator L25316 V K&N PS-7011: A Comparison

[RooflessVW]

Broke down the last two cartridges I used in my 911 before switching to canister filters. Both were used for about 1,000 miles.

First up, the Purolator.




238in² of media! You can also see where the glue on the end cap let go from me pulling where I didn't cut all the way through the media.

Next up, the K&N:




262in² of media! Clearly the winner in this regard.

It is A LOT of filter:



I greatly prefer the K&N here. They may be made in the same factory, but it is constructed with more media, and I could not tear the media from the end caps. It's also the least expensive cartridge you can buy for this car.

 

[53' Stude]

Very nice pics and informative. Thank You for the cut and post

 

[maverickfhs]

K&N is definitely a winner

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

10% more media with how much both of these filters have is not going to make or break any engine; with the outward quality appearance on these I would base my choice on the media filtering efficiency before just square inches.

 

[Omahaug]

I like the red color.

 

[wemay]

Thanks for the work. Both filters look good, but just taking appearance into consideration, the length of the K&N is a plus.

 

[RooflessVW]

Another weird observation. When I took the Purolator out, the pleats were bunched, with two pleats together, then a gap, then two pleats, then a gap, etc.

The filter has been sitting and it has relaxed, but you can still kinda see it.

K&N was uniform all around.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

What’s the price difference?

 

[RooflessVW]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
What’s the price difference?

Purolator was part of a deal but it's pretty expensive, like $15 or so, just like Fram, STP, and Champion.

K&N and the OES (Mann, Mahle, Hengst) are all $6-8.

 

[malibuguy79]

[censored] big difference

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Originally Posted By: NoNameJoe
I like the red color.

 

[901Memphis]

Without knowing the quality of the media this is anecdotal. K&N is famous now for using more lower efficiency, quality, holding capacity media, especially since they changed the media when they began production in Mexico and Korea. They used to be good when they've were made in the USA.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Without knowing the quality of the media this is anecdotal. K&N is famous now for using more lower efficiency, quality, holding capacity media, especially since they changed the media when they began production in Mexico and Korea. They used to be good when they've were made in the USA.


Ok, what are the efficiency numbers for these two filters? How much does substantial extra media mitigate less desirable efficiency ratings?

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but chastising one because of where it's made without offering specific data is conjecture.

 

[RooflessVW]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Ok, what are the efficiency numbers for these two filters? How much does substantial extra media mitigate less desirable efficiency ratings?

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but chastising one because of where it's made without offering specific data is conjecture.

Wix lists the "nominal micron rating" of their 57211 (same application as the ones posted) as 28 microns.

Whatever that means. We all praise cartridges made by Mann, Mahle, Hengst, and Purflux here... But does anyone know their efficiency ratings? Hard to imagine any filter intended for a 30,000 mile OCI is super efficient.

 

[bbhero]

I believe nominal efficiency ratings are typically at 50% to maybe 60%.

Example.... My LF 240 oil filter made by Hastings had a nominal rating at 23 microns and an absolute microns rating at 45 microns. So that means it was 50% @ 23 microns and 98.7% @ 45 micons.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted By: wemay
How much does substantial extra media mitigate less desirable efficiency ratings?


wemay, I know this was an honest question, but I don't think extra media mitigates less desirable efficiency, EVER. Reason being, if you think of the screen door analogy- If you have a standard sized screen door with a 1/16" mesh screen, and you have a 20'x20' rollup door with 1/4" mesh screen, does the additional screen area really offer any benefit in keeping stuff out of your building? Nope.

About the only thing extra media will benefit is if you insist on OCIs that exceed the holding capacity of the filter media of the more efficient filter; then, the extra media would offer slightly longer life but still not any benefit when you change the filter before it is "full".

 

[wemay]

Got it. Thanks for the analogy too. Goes back to rooflessVW's post asking how efficient any of these filters are, especially ones meant to last 30K miles.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Dangit... I just realized I essentially validated every one of ZeeOSix's Fram Ultra posts with my analogy

Oh well, live and learn LOL

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
I believe nominal efficiency ratings are typically at 50% to maybe 60%.

Example.... My LF 240 oil filter made by Hastings had a nominal rating at 23 microns and an absolute microns rating at 45 microns. So that means it was 50% @ 23 microns and 98.7% @ 45 micons.


If you Google it, there will be a couple of definitions of "nominal efficiency" out there, but I think most of industry does associate the 50% efficiency point as the "nominal efficiency".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Dangit... I just realized I essentially validated every one of ZeeOSix's Fram Ultra posts with my analogy

Oh well, live and learn LOL


LOL ... "We don't need no stinkin' efficiency".