PurolatorONE = 99%@30um, NOT 20um like it says on Amazon
- Thread starter Robvette
- Start date
Weird considering Purolators website says 99% at 20 Microns.
"*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001"
They need to be more upfront about this, basing it on 1 filter is kind of bogus in my opinion, FRAM does a much better job at least by basing it on 3 filters one fairly small which is the 3387A instead of just basing it on a big filter like the PL30001.
"*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001"
They need to be more upfront about this, basing it on 1 filter is kind of bogus in my opinion, FRAM does a much better job at least by basing it on 3 filters one fairly small which is the 3387A instead of just basing it on a big filter like the PL30001.
100% high flow, hell yeah.
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,264
We've run the Purolator One or Purolator Boss on our Escape since about 30,000 miles when it was purchased.It now has 78,xxx miles and neither of them have had any sort of "rips" when cut open.
They are actually being honest by saying that efficiency is based on the PL30001 filter. It's just that most people don't understand that the size of the filter can make a difference in the ISO efficiency test, so they automatically think all PureOne filters are that efficiency. Purolator uses the PL30001 reference for a reason.
I don't think filter media size would have a that much of an effect on an oil filter's micron rating. Ascent Filtration provided data on the difference in efficiency between a lightly loaded filter and one approaching its maximum dirt loading capacity at higher differential pressure, and the difference in the efficiency was only around 4 or 5 microns.They are actually being honest by saying that efficiency is based on the PL30001 filter. It's just that most people don't understand that the size of the filter can make a difference in the ISO efficiency test, so they automatically think all PureOne filters are that efficiency. Purolator uses the PL30001 reference for a reason.
I believe ISO 4548 allows the manufacturer to define both the test flow rate and the terminal pressure, so it is definitely possible to game the test to get a better result, regardless of the size of the filter, but I don't think it could make a huge difference.
Purolator provided some specs on the BOSS PBL14610 that showed a 46 micron rating, versus the claimed 25 micron rating for the PBL30001. This is a huge difference, and I suspect that they designed a "ringer" for the test article, or tested an older design with more efficient media and just kept making the same efficiency claims. Purolator's claims are intentionally and grossly misleading, and I don't blame the consumer for assuming that they are somewhat representative of other filter models. Other manufacturers seem to be able to meet their claimed efficiency ratings with their filters, and not just with their chosen test sample.
It's been mentioned many times over the years that the four smallest Purolator PureOne filters actually said "99% @ 40 microns" right on the box instead of the "99% at 20 microns" statement that Purolator showed on their website. There is no reason that Purolator would use different media in the smallest PureOnes, so that difference in efficiency must have been due to them being very small in size.
As has been discussed many times that the ISO efficiency can be effected if a filter has a tough time holding already captured debris as the delta-p starts increasing towards the end of the test, and that will drag the overall efficiency rating down. If they use the same test settings for all sized filters, then the smaller sized filters are going to have a tougher time being as efficient as a larger sized filter.
And the level of debris sloughing off the media is a function of the media design. Some of the filters that Ascent tested were pretty high efficiency, and were obviously able to retain most of the already captured debris as the delta-p increased. A filter will not rate high in the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test if it is a bad "debris slougher" as the delta-p increases.
Last edited:
ZeeOSix,
Seeking counsel for my Value Analysis Database. As mentioned above the Purolator website references their filter performance as 99% @20 microns for the PL30001 filter. In this thread we have a MANN-HUMMEL associate stating 99% @ 30 micron for a PL 24011 filter.
I'm currently using the 20 micron rating in my database. Should I rate the PureOne at 30 and reference this thread or continue to maintain it at 20? The filter in my database is the PL14615 that is smaller than the PL24011.
Thank you.
Bellavita - I'd recommend trying to contact Purolator and see if they can give you the efficiency info for that specific oil filter. I did some digging, and found this old post about the four smallest PureOne filters that were shown by Purolator to be 99% @ 40u.
Now it sounds like some of their filter models are 99% @ 30u. So sounds like they can be anywhere between 99% @ 40u and 99% @ 20u depending the size of the filter.
From the post link below, it was: PL14610 and PL14612 and the PL14476 & PL14477 which have the SAE threads instead of the metric threads which the 14610 & 14612 have.
I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate.
Hokie- Thanks for that insight I was about to post on the lack of HLA on this honda design. Greg_ I would hazard a guess the tick after fillup is THE EVAP purge valve - a noisy ticker on many cars if there ever was one. Look for it under hood and put a polish stethoscope on it to verify...
bobistheoilguy.com
Last edited:
Will do Robvette. I'll be updating it and including a link.
Hi Robvette,
Here is the link . . . the database actually displays within the reply. When I here back from Purolator I'll update the database if needed.
The thread "Oil Filter Value Analysis" is where this originated and is where I communicate updates.
To add to this ... it's also possible that the smaller sized Purolator ONE filters are now 99% @ 30u instead of 40u. Lot of changes have occurred over the last 10 years in the oil filter world. At this point in time, only Purolator knows and maybe they will give someone the current efficiency info on specific filter models if asked.
@Bellavita - if you contact Purolator should ask them what they show the efficiency on at least one of the PL14610, PL14612, PL14476 & PL14477 to see if it has changed.
Last edited:
This thread has a test sheet for the PL14610, which is very similar to the PL14615 but is half an inch taller, and is rated at 30 micron. The Purolator BOSS PBL14610 test sheet is also there, and it is rated at 46 micron.
I would assume that the PL30001 and PBL30001 are outliers, and would use the 30 micron and 46 micron figures in your database.
Guess I missed the data sheet info in that thread. It shows that the PureONE PL14610 is 99% @ 30u (data sheet snap-shot below). Ten years ago Purolator showed it as 99% @ 40u right on the box, so apparently the media might have changed on the smallest spin-ons in terms of efficiency and they are better now than they were 10 years ago.
The Purolator Boss tested by Ascent came in better than 99% @ 46u ... but could be because it was a larger size filter than the Boss PLB14610 in the other thread with the M+H data sheets. ISO 4548-12 test setup could have a factor in the end results too. The Boss that Ascent tested came in at 99% @ 34u.
I emailed Mann-Hummel for the Efficiency @Micron rating for the Purolator L14615 Classic, PL14615 PureOne and the PBL14615 Boss. I'm very impressed at how fast they got back to me and sent spec sheets!
L14615 96.5% @25
PL14615 99.0% @30
PBL14615 99.0% @46
The database has been updated!
L14615 96.5% @25
PL14615 99.0% @30
PBL14615 99.0% @46
The database has been updated!
Similar threads
