Purolator One vs Purolator Boss Questions

[ZeeOSix]

What do those particle count numbers represent? The number of particles that got through/past the filter? Is a lower number of particles better?

That's the number of particles per mL of oil. Of course the lower the number the cleaner the oil. So yes, lower is obviously better than higher.

 

[ZeeOSix]

According to a Lake Speed Oil Geek video... Toyota filters are (he says) made by Mobil One. If so, why would Toy & M1 score differently?

Edited in Later... I just realized Lake Speed Oil Geek didn't say that Mobil makes Toyota filters. He said Mobil One makes Toyota oil. He didn't mention the filters.

Toyota Denso filters are typically made in Thailand.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Baldwin build quality appears to be top notch. Baldwin B35-S specs claims it filters 18 microns nominal. Wix 51036 claims it filters 21 microns nominal. What does that mean? Can we trust the manufacturers claimed specs to be truthful and accurate?

"Nominal" efficiency is 50% efficient. So they are 50% @18u and 50% @ 21u.

 

[Carlostrece]

That's the number of particles per mL of oil. Of course the lower the number the cleaner the oil. So yes, lower is obviously better than higher.

I suspected that's what it meant, but didn't know. Thanks for explaining.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I recently watched a Brand Rank video on Youtube (not the Lake Speed guy) where a young guy tests oil filters using a testing contraption he built. He tests flow, capacity, and filtration efficiency. He seems serious, careful, and he built (what seems to my half educated mind) to be good testing equipment, but what do I really know? Nothing I guess.

He's been testing many brands/models of oil filters and ranking them. Baldwin tested very well for flow and capacity, but very poorly for filtering efficiency. Purolator Boss tested the best overall. At least according to the guy who made the series of videos. I don't think he tested Purolator One.

Been lots of talk about that method of ranking efficiency - it's not an official ISO 4548-12 test. There's a theory that the filters with leaf springs could be leaking dirty oil which brings their efficiency down more like the Boss efficiency, so the Boss and them rank about the same. They are ranking the efficiency based on particle counts. As I've pointed out many times, based on the official ISO 4548-12 specs directly from M+H/Purolator and the official ISO 4548-12 efficiency testing done by Ascent, there's no way the Boss should rank like it did in BR's testing.

 

[Carlostrece]

"Nominal" efficiency is 50% efficient. So they are 50% @18u and 50% @ 21u.

I see. Is 18 nominal good enough? How about 21? How much can we trust the manufacturer specs/claims to be accurate?

 

[Carlostrece]

Been lots of talk about that method of ranking efficiency. As I've pointed out many times, based on the official ISO 4548-12 specs directly from M+H/Purolator and the official ISO 4548-12 efficiency testing done by Ascent, there's no way the Boss should rank like it did in BR's testing.

Aha. So if he's wrong about the Boss being the best, then might he also be wrong about Baldwin failing his filtration efficiency test? I think his credibility is in doubt.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I see. Is 18 nominal good enough? How about 21? How much can we trust the manufacturer specs/claims to be accurate?

Those efficiencies are basically the same as what the M+H/Purolator spec sheets shows for the Boss - ie, 50% @ 22u. If Baldwin says that's the efficiency then who else would know better than them?

Only you can decided if those efficiencies are "good enough" for you. Everyone will have their own spin on filter efficiency. All I'll say is I would not use a filter with that relatively low efficiency for a very long OCI. If your OCI is 3000-5000 miles, then lower efficiency doesn't matter as much as if it was a long OCI, like 10K or more miles.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Aha. So if he's wrong about the Boss being the best, then might he also be wrong about Baldwin failing his filtration efficiency test? I think his credibility is in doubt.

I don't think the Baldwin has a leaf spring, so maybe it's not a leaker. BR is the last source I'd choose a filter based on efficiency claim, maybe only if there was no other ISO 4548-12 efficiency info on the filter, like the Denso Toyota filters.

 

[Carlostrece]

Those efficiencies are basically the same as what the M+H/Purolator spec sheets shows for the Boss - ie, 50% @ 22u. If Baldwin says that's the efficiency then who else would know better than them?

Only you can decided if those efficiencies are "good enough" for you. Everyone will have their own spin on filter efficiency. All I'll say is I would not use a filter with that relatively low efficiency for a very long OCI. If your OCI is 3000-5000 miles, then lower efficiency doesn't matter as much as if it was a long OCI, like 10K or more miles.

Well heck, this thread is a great education. Thank you everyone and especially ZeeOSix!

In the Western towns in WA & OR Wix is king based on popularity. Probably cause most of us small town folks don't know any better. All most of us know is the sweet words our local auto stores tell us about Wix. For a long time, I've felt that Baldwin (more of a Midwest filter and hard to find in WA & OR) is better than Wix. I still think Baldwin is slightly better than Wix. However, the humble Purolator and Purolator One filters are much better (at filtering) AND cost much less than Baldwin or Wix. I've become a Purolator and Purolator One fan, but I'm not a fan of the Boss.

 

[Carlostrece]

I don't think the Baldwin has a leaf spring, so maybe it's not a leaker. BR is the last source I'd choose a filter based on efficiency claim, maybe only if there was no other ISO 4548-12 efficiency info on the filter, like the Denso Toyota filters.

Ya. I no longer trust Brand Rank at all. I'm going to unsubscribe from BR and cancel any Likes I gave their videos.

I'm an old dog still learning new tricks. Thanks for the free education!

 

[fantastic]

How trustworthy do you think manufacturer specs are?

The ones that can show ISO tested data. Which Purolator does. That eliminates the marketing claims.

3-5 years would lend the synthetic Boss media a good option. Although the One should work fine I think but 5 years is quite a long time. Purolator One should be better efficiency though. You change oil quite early in miles and either filter would still serve you well. I'd edge more towards the Boss though simply due to 5 years between changes.

 

[Fair enough]

The ones that can show ISO tested data. Which Purolator does. That eliminates the marketing claims.

3-5 years would lend the synthetic Boss media a good option. Although the One should work fine I think 5 years is quite a long time. Purolator One should be better efficiency though.

Waiting for the Purolator website to change though, where it states the test used and the rating. Boss 99+%@25 microns, One 99%@20 microns, Standard, 96.5%@20 microns. Same way as most Asian filters are verified and everyone is content with it. Plus Fram,etc, all are content with website and box numbers. It is a conundrum maybe the word for it.

 

[fantastic]

Waiting for the Purolator website to change though, where it states the test used and the rating. Boss 99+%@25 microns, One 99%@20 microns, Standard, 96.5%@20 microns. Same way as most Asian filters are verified and everyone is content with it. Plus Fram,etc, all are content with website and box numbers. It is a conundrum maybe the word for it.

Purolator still has the edge since it comes with data now. However, Purolator website claim is not correct if they're still referencing that one model while the spec sheet says differently. Old info? I don't know or think so. Unfortunately, many see that and run with it.
We all need to call out marketing if there is no testing data with it. As many have done here. In short don't hold your breath but here's to hoping.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Why would you pay nearly twice as much for the Boss filter when the Purolator One has as good or better efficiency at 20 microns?

 

[Glenda W.]

Why would you pay nearly twice as much for the Boss filter when the Purolator One has as good or better efficiency at 20 microns?

If you’re worried about media tears.

 

[Infomercial]

The boss has more capacity for 20,000 mile oci.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The boss has more capacity for 20,000 mile oci.

What you don't want to do is use a low efficiency oil filter for a very long OCI. The shorter the OCI, the less important efficiency becomes. If you did an OCI every 1000 miles, you wouldn't need much of an oil filter.

 

[Carlostrece]

Are those all UOA PCs off your vehicles? The average >14 microns count seems pretty low compared to the >14u counts in the table in post 8, except for OG Ultra #2. I think looking at the >6u particle counts might be a better way to compare, as the higher efficiency filters will stand out better at that level.

What's an OG Ultra #2? An original ganster model Ultra of what brand?

 

[ZeeOSix]

What's an OG Ultra #2? An original ganster model Ultra of what brand?

Just another OG Ultra .. so they both showed similar low particle counts. Same with the to MG (MicrGaurd - Edit, MicroGreen) filers ... they both had similar particle counts between them.