The PureOne is quite a jump in quality over the premium. My AP sell the PureOne for $5.88 so $4.88 is about 20% off. I consider the PureOne to be a top-tier oil filter. As to those saying PureOne don't have as high a flow as some the answer is; it is of no consequence. PureOnes have more than ample flow and in addition are one of the best efficiency filters. Of course a less efficient filter (more dirt passing) may have higher flow but that is not what I want.
Purolator PureOne on Sale - Worth It ?
- Thread starter Tosh
- Start date
- Status
Since I paid 1 cent for my Purolator Premium Plus, I can expect about 2K miles from my car, according to your independent scientific independent lab "factoid". Only problem is I already have over 60K on the car.quote:
Originally posted by SWHeat:
My personal independent test lab has shown that there is a direct correlation with engine life and the amount you paid for your oil filter. Given that "factoid," your best bet is an Amsoil with M1 and K&N a close second. For example, I had two cars still running when junked. A '89 Chevrolet Cavalier with 226K and a '91 Mercury Tracer with 189K both using FRAM filters and 3K OCI's. So, do the math. ST = $2.07 and the Pure 1 = $5.99. That means you will get approximately three times the mileage if you use the Pure 1 filters. In my "personal independent lab test" if I had used a ST instead of the $4.00 Fram I could have only gotten 1/2 the milage out of my cars. I wish now I would have known about Amsoil products earlier, because I miss my Cavalier with no headliner, worn out seats, 10K alternator changes, leaking window seals, oil leaks at every gasket. She could still be mine if I had only known... your lab results may vary.
Oh, BTW, the only reason the cavalier went to the junk yard was becaue the A/C stopped working. That was the last straw here in Arizona! No more money into the pit. Didn't burn oil yet...just leaks everywhere. I wonder if I used better filtration if my engine seals would have lasted longer. Hmmmmmm.BTW, I'm no "expert."
I guess I'm truly on borrowed time. If only I had known you 58K miles ago, I wouldn't be in this predicament.
You do not know that! An oil filter never restricts the flow of oil to your engine! Your oil pump is a positive displacement pump. It always pumps the same amount of oil regardless of the restriction downstream. (well pretty much, it is more complicated than that, but pretty much).
Check out Gary's test results with a used P1 filter. The pressure drop across that filter is negligable.
Tpitcher and Winston,
The flow data for the PureOne filter I'm referring to is at the famous website: http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/PurPureOne.htm and don't forget to see the main study at http://www.oilfilterstudy.com
Note the correlation between flow rate and how small the porosity of the media is. The PureOne filters great, but the pressure drop, the resistance to oil flow, is not good. Compare it to the same brand, Purolator, their standard "PremiumPlus" filter, same size filter, has 3 times the flow at the same pressure differential. Houston, we have a problem.
http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/PurPremPlus.htm
And notice the PremiumPlus filter, has larger porosity of it's media, and allows higher flow rates.
The flow data for the PureOne filter I'm referring to is at the famous website: http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/PurPureOne.htm and don't forget to see the main study at http://www.oilfilterstudy.com
Note the correlation between flow rate and how small the porosity of the media is. The PureOne filters great, but the pressure drop, the resistance to oil flow, is not good. Compare it to the same brand, Purolator, their standard "PremiumPlus" filter, same size filter, has 3 times the flow at the same pressure differential. Houston, we have a problem.
http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/PurPremPlus.htm
And notice the PremiumPlus filter, has larger porosity of it's media, and allows higher flow rates.
Winston,
I appreciate your statements about positive displacement, etc. Your starter motor will turn over engine more slowly with the extra flow restriction of the PureOne, causing greater start-up wear. The PureOne does filter slightly better, but I'd be more comfortable with a flow rate between what the PureOne does and what the PremiumPlus does. See webpage links in my last post immediately above.
I appreciate your statements about positive displacement, etc. Your starter motor will turn over engine more slowly with the extra flow restriction of the PureOne, causing greater start-up wear. The PureOne does filter slightly better, but I'd be more comfortable with a flow rate between what the PureOne does and what the PremiumPlus does. See webpage links in my last post immediately above.
*** Ok Boyz, chew on this ***
So I went to Fleet Farm, the Man's Mall, and they only have the regular Purlator filters, they don't stock the PureOne's for the Chevy/GMC Trucks.
Well, there's a lot of these trucks in Minnesota !!!
So I talked to the parts Guy and he said, nope we don't stock those, and IMMEDIATELY steered me to the Fram Tough Guards !!!
I said, nope, no way there not as good,
he about bursted saying they were essentially as good as PureOne and tried to act sooo knowledgable.
I didn't buy it and he sure found out...
Can you believe that...???
So I went to Fleet Farm, the Man's Mall, and they only have the regular Purlator filters, they don't stock the PureOne's for the Chevy/GMC Trucks.
Well, there's a lot of these trucks in Minnesota !!!
So I talked to the parts Guy and he said, nope we don't stock those, and IMMEDIATELY steered me to the Fram Tough Guards !!!
I said, nope, no way there not as good,
I didn't buy it and he sure found out...
Can you believe that...???
tpitcher,
I agree. Fram just doesn't come through for us. All the evidence I've seen suggests other makes are consistently better. The latest I've seen is at http://www.oilfilterstudy.com .
I agree. Fram just doesn't come through for us. All the evidence I've seen suggests other makes are consistently better. The latest I've seen is at http://www.oilfilterstudy.com .
I once had a Fram filter (nearly new) stop flow to my engine (years ago). I'm not a fan of Fram.
Coldcranker:
Man, those engineers at Arvin Meritor must have stock in all auto manufactures because they are contributing to the demise of countless engines in all makes and models.
You do realize that Grease's study was with 30 weight oil at 70F?
Check this "real world" study done just this past weekend...for example. 9K Pure One below freezing with 20W50 Oil
What I find most ironic about Grease's study is the following quote taken from his comment section:
Whoa, slow down there. That is quite the definitive statment. Way too many factors in play to state so absolutely. Equating the use of a Pure One to increased startup wear?
Check this "real world" study done just this past weekend...for example. 9K Pure One below freezing with 20W50 Oil
What? "Slightly" better? According to Grease's study, the Pure One filters (at 70F with a 30 weight-nondetergent oil) better than a Parker hydraulic filter beta 2 = 10 microns. That is more than slightly better than, for example, most Wix filters that have beta 2 = 19 microns for the majority of their filters. More like "twice as good."
Now desiring a good flow rate is one school of thought. However, Winston's comments about Oil Pump displacement hold true. You still get the "same" amount of oil to the engine. There is no engine "starvation for oil" as long as the oil pump doesn't go above its bypass setting. Try a search on this site with the words "positive displacement" for example and you can read about it.
What I find most ironic about Grease's study is the following quote taken from his comment section:
That part in bold should stir the pot a bit.
I remember reading that statement about "Real filtration" and just thought it was silly.
Cold cranker, it is clear that there are many factors to consider when choosing a filter. And you comment about cranking slower is interesting, but I do not think you could ever measure the difference in cranking speed between a Premium plus and a Pure One. Nor could you detect a difference in wear from cold cranking speed.
To me, the cleanliness of the oil is much more important than cold cranking speed.
Plus, I live in California, it never gets that cold, and I park my car in the garage. The most important factor for me is the cleanest oil possible.
[ March 08, 2006, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Winston ]
Cold cranker, it is clear that there are many factors to consider when choosing a filter. And you comment about cranking slower is interesting, but I do not think you could ever measure the difference in cranking speed between a Premium plus and a Pure One. Nor could you detect a difference in wear from cold cranking speed.
To me, the cleanliness of the oil is much more important than cold cranking speed.
Plus, I live in California, it never gets that cold, and I park my car in the garage. The most important factor for me is the cleanest oil possible.
[ March 08, 2006, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Winston ]
The Grease study proved that the Tough Guard's filter media is equal to the media of the Purolator PureOne, filtration wise. I would have no problems using one myself...in fact, I have one ready to go in the Saturn.quote:
I said, nope, no way there not as good,he about bursted saying they were essentially as good as PureOne and tried to act sooo knowledgable.
On my motorcycle, I use PureONe in a larger size than called for. Increased area of the larger size will decrease the overall pressure required to drive the oil across the finer filter material, so, I don't worry about lack of flow-rate. I work with filters and flowrates for a living, but, it's blood instead of oil. Many of the questions about viscosity/flow rates/filter pore size/pressure drops are apparent in my line of work. The better your filtration, the higher the pressure needed per square inch to get a given flow (assuming the filtration you're getting restricts flow at all). So, to get better flow with an efficient, restrictive filter, you increase filter area. OR, you decrease viscosity, or both.
Take home message: run the best filtering, most filter material area, with the lowest viscosity oil your application requires, and you'll get the most flow AND best filtration possible.
Take home message: run the best filtering, most filter material area, with the lowest viscosity oil your application requires, and you'll get the most flow AND best filtration possible.
I think Bob, Member #1, as in BobistheOilGuy, argued back around 2002 that oil flow during startup is a factor in engine wear that could be affected by the filter. A full blown discussion ensued with many cons and pros contributing. Since then, many "other side" experts on here have said all filters flow enough oil that it is not a true concern.
If I've paraphrased too generally, apologies in advance.
If I've paraphrased too generally, apologies in advance.
SWheat and Winston,
It is basic engineering that, when a starter motor has the task of pulling oil up through the filter from the sump, at greater resistance, the starter motor will turn over more slowly.
The www.oilfilterstudy.com study showed us the PureOne has greater resistance to flow.
I do tend to agree with the positive displacement (once the engine is running) statements. The added drag of a PureOne on the engine turning is probably no big deal, and the motor will run at normal RPM. I think the startup case is important, though.
It is basic engineering that, when a starter motor has the task of pulling oil up through the filter from the sump, at greater resistance, the starter motor will turn over more slowly.
The www.oilfilterstudy.com study showed us the PureOne has greater resistance to flow.
I do tend to agree with the positive displacement (once the engine is running) statements. The added drag of a PureOne on the engine turning is probably no big deal, and the motor will run at normal RPM. I think the startup case is important, though.
- Status
Similar threads
