How about p urolator pure one!where would it be on the first chart?
Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
- Thread starter Ascent Filtration Testing
- Start date
No one knows since it wasn’t part of the test.
Purolator's website shows the "ONE" (the PureONE) to still be 99% @ 20u based on their gigantic PL30001.
Can you still find that on their site? I looked and searched elsewhere and couldn't find that reference.
But yeah, that would be better than the "Boss", but doubt it would beat Fram Ultra.
If you wanted to consider other filters,
Wix std. would be better than Wix XP. (I think the claim is 99% at 23 micron)
Amsoil has a line that claims 99% at 20 micron.
There's a long list of filters that many people here would like to see tested. I want to see a torture test. Send big volumes of oil at a filter, with a pressure differential just 1-2 psi below the bypass point, for like 100 hours and see which ones are torn or have deformed pleating in the end.
Yes is on the webpage, just above the grey banner at the bottom.
PurolatorONE™
PurolatorONE™ Oil Filters deliver advanced engine protection for peak performance, making them one of the best oil filters for many drivers today.
Yessir there it is, thank you.
Yep, it's like trying to find Waldo. Don't know why they can't make the information easier to find, especially when the efficiency is good and not something to hide.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
You would think the "higher end" Boss would do a better job of filtering, I guess longer life is a selling point now. I recall they used to say 99+% @20microns for 10,000 miles on the Boss. But they don't say that anymore. The testing proved that was incredibly wrong.........
A side note, when I worked for a Gulf service station in the early 70s they had Fram as their product line, the supplier was a Gulf jobber, and that's what we had. Then sometime in 1973 they changed to Purolator, never knew why, better quality, or cheaper price? Then in 1974 they pulled out of 7 western states......
I don't think the Purolator BOSS was ever shown by Purolator to be as good as the PureONE at 99% @ 20u. It was shown as "99%" but at 35 or 40u IIRC. If it was shown as 99% @ 20u I might have went with it instead of the Ultra since I was a Purolator fan before the media tearing issues started on the non-synthetic Purolators.
You would think that, but yes, longer life seems to be the selling point they're going for.
The Boss is ok in regards to holding capacity. And the Wix XP is exceptional.
But in a well maintained vehicle that shouldn't be your priority.
In the case of stated claims, this is proof positive that if they don't specifically claim something, or that claim disappears, or they are inentionally vague on what the efficiency claim corresponds to (micron-wise) then there is good reason for it. And you'd be wise to stay away.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
I have been a Purolator P1 fan due to the very efficient filtering at the price point. Now I've been converted to Fram (at least the XG line), based on the science thanks to Andrew @ Ascent Filtration Testing.
I posted this 6 months ago, it was from Amazon's information page. See the "cross" (or "dagger" if you prefer) footnote. Their page has since been updated.
^^^ I'll look on my other computer - think I have some older screen shots of the Purolator filters advertised efficiencies from Purolator's website. Not sure I totally trust 3rd party info from a source like Amazon, even though it might have come from the manufacturer.
Not sure what "10,000 miles at 20 microns" really means. Purolator has never expressed their efficiency like that on their website.
Not sure what "10,000 miles at 20 microns" really means. Purolator has never expressed their efficiency like that on their website.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Agreed a well maintained vehicle should not need a high capacity filter. Filtering efficiency at the smallest particle possible has always been my priority. Also using oversize filters to ensure flow. I was told to be careful using the PureONE, as they would plug up quickly.
Yes, I've been accused of digging too deep and over thinking issues, but to get the facts, sometimes you have to dig. E.g. a screen is 99+% efficient @2mm. LOL
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
I would assume it means at 10,000 miles the efficiency drops due to higher delta-p dislodging already captured particles.
Note sure. Purolator has always referenced ISO 4548-12 for efficiency, at least for the last 10 years, and still do. The table on Amazon has no test reference. It just seems unofficial.
Right now Purolator shows the BOSS is 99% - Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PBL30001.
Andrew's test of the BOSS wasn't that good for the size he tested (much smaller than the 30001) - it was ~88% @ 25μ.
Andrew's test of the BOSS wasn't that good for the size he tested (much smaller than the 30001) - it was ~88% @ 25μ.
Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
I have this as a “watched” thread, so if you do happen to start a new one, could you put a note or link in this one to direct followers to the new thread? Thanks!! Yes, no problem I can do that.
bobistheoilguy.com
Last edited:
Yea I brought that up at the time trying to find out the manufacture date on the boss. It was a fairly recent change on the boss efficiency.
Found this older thread, and appears the BOSS was once shown by Purolator as 99% @ 40u, but now shows it as 99% @ 25u. The links were broken in the post when the board software upgrade happened.
Also, this is from April 2016, so I guess the BOSS efficiency has been improved compared to what it initially was.
Purolator Boss PBL14615 filter after 12,295 miles
Purolator PBL14615 ran for 2 OC's hence the 12,295 miles. Nothing unusual noticed in the reveal. Base plate and o ring, ADV, and bypass valve in good shape as is the filter medium.
bobistheoilguy.com
Also, this is from April 2016, so I guess the BOSS efficiency has been improved compared to what it initially was.
Last edited:
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Interesting that the 98-100 graph highlights a drop off in efficiency for particle sizes past 30. Granted it's very small, Fram goes from 99.9% @ 30 microns to 98.8% @ 50 microns. Others had a similar (some more radical) drop off, even on the larger charts, is it an error margin?
Similar threads
