PUREONE BETA RATES!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The "high mileage" and "low mileage" could certainly only be referring to the miles driven per year.
 
Originally Posted By: yota4me
The "high mileage" and "low mileage" could certainly only be referring to the miles driven per year.


That's my take too ... so why would it matter which one of the two Purolator models is used if someone followed the 3 month or 3,000 mile OCI as recommended on another part of Purolator's website?

Smoke and mirrors info (aka "marketing) it seems.
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: yota4me
The "high mileage" and "low mileage" could certainly only be referring to the miles driven per year.


That's my take too ... so why would it matter which one of the two Purolator models is used if someone followed the 3 month or 3,000 mile OCI as recommended on another part of Purolator's website?

Smoke and mirrors info (aka "marketing) it seems.
lol.gif



I don't know about their reasoning for the different filters. They have to justify the cheaper filter somehow. Some people are always going to buy the cheaper filter.
I'd always want the more efficient filter for longest engine life.

From an Amsoil TSB on engine wear:

"The SAE paper summarizes the test results with
the following conclusions:
“Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced
with an increase in filter single pass efficiency.
Compared to a 40u filter, engine wear
was reduced by 50% with 30u filtration. Likewise,
wear was reduced by 70% with 15u filtration.
“Controlling the abrasive contaminants in the
range of 2 to 22u in the lube oil is necessary for
controlling engine wear."
 
Last edited:
Well Gary, SuperBusa, and all others, spoke with Katrina's standin at Purolator this morning about no replies from their engineer, Brain Crawford, concerning challenging his beta ratios he gave us earlier. She says in speaking with him (Crawford) that he is aware of them, but not in the business of marketing and spending his time on the computer responding to people on oil forums. She added that he reinterates that the beta ratios are correct, taken from their PL 30001 filter (as the other engineer told me over the phone; see above.). So everyone, I, for one, believe the numbers. Case closed - we arn't going to get anything else out of them (I think we ticked them off).
 
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
.... She says in speaking with him (Crawford) that he is aware of them, but not in the business of marketing and spending his time on the computer responding to people on oil forums. ...

So everyone, I, for one, believe the numbers. Case closed - we arn't going to get anything else out of them (I think we ticked them off).


Humm ... my feeling is that it is in Purolator's best interest to "respond to people on the oil forums" for those who have valid questions coming in through there Tech Dept response system. IMO it's beneficial to selling more PureONE filters.

Just like the flow vs PSID data they graciously provided me when I asked. IMO, it snuffed the rumor that PureONEs are "too restrictive". I would think such data (beta ratios, flow vs PSID, etc) making it out to public chat boards would be very good for business.

Hopefully, they (Purolator employees) have read this thread.
 
I use two of these on a Donaldson HMK25 filter base. They give about 12 gpm @ span>2 psi pressure drop for new filters

p564468-432-140.jpg


Hydraulic Filters Product Attributes

Length: 14.24" (362 mm)
Thread Size: 1 3/4-12
Outer Diameter: 4.6" (117 mm)
Efficiency Beta 75: 3 Micron
Efficiency Beta 1000: span>4 Micron
Primary Application: DONALDSON HMK05/25 #1/2 MEDIA
Product Group: FL

Packaged Dimensions

Country of Origin: US (United States)
Gross Length in Inches: 5.2
Gross Height in Inches: 14.8
Gross Weight in Pounds: 4.85
Gross Width in Inches: 5.1
Pieces Per Pallet: 192

Other Item Information

NMFC - USA: 069100-09
HTS - USA: 8421.29.0040
 
Not gonna lie, I got sick of reading all the bickering from the Amsoil guy in this thread...

so, did we ever get to the bottom of this as far as if the Purolator numbers provided are real or not?
 
It is my understanding that "the Amsoil guy" (Gary Allen) has passed on. His last post was on 4/2/11.

BTW, Gary was highly thought of by most members on this board.
 
Gary was right to question the numbers. I've seen a test that was performed using uniform sized aluminum spheres passed through the filter media, backed by high efficiency filter patches that caught the remainder of the particles. The PureONE did not perform anywhere near the level of the three filters that were using a synthetic microglass media. The Fram Xtended Guard, Royal Purple and Amsoil filters soundly stomped the PureONE in filtering ability.
 
Quote:
.......I've seen a test that was performed using uniform sized aluminum spheres passed through the filter media, backed by high efficiency filter patches that caught the remainder of the particles. The PureONE did not perform anywhere near the level of the three filters that were using a synthetic microglass media. The Fram Xtended Guard, Royal Purple and Amsoil filters soundly stomped the PureONE in filtering ability.

I've seen that 'so called' test posted here too. That patch "test" result was a bunch of hogwash bullshine to put it mildly. It had the same filters ie., Wix and Napa Gold, and Extra Guard orange can and High Mileage filters show up with very different results.

It's laughable that one would compare some patch particle test done in some random guy's basement posted on the internet, to refute/discredit actual results of testing done in a lab under controlled conditions. river_rat's bench testing here, confirmed the P1 to have excellent filtration and flow characteristics. And unlike the patch 'so called test', his results confirmed similar results with filters known to be similar/same, eg., P1 and Bosch Prem, the Honda filter brands (no endcap type). etc.

The point here wasn't that P1 is better or worse than some synthetic fiber filters, it was the specs posted by here by Purolator.

Now, one can disbelieve the engineeers' at Purolator here, one can even call them liars. But, to point to a psuedo scientific patch test as some kind of proof that a filter doesn't meet the specs posted/published here is a joke.
smiley-rolleyes010.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
It is my understanding that "the Amsoil guy" (Gary Allen) has passed on. His last post was on 4/2/11.

BTW, Gary was highly thought of by most members on this board.



Wow I did not know that Gary was not with us anymore. I had exchanged messages with him a few times. he was a great guy and contributed to this board a lot. I know it is late but rip Gary, we will miss you !
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Quote:
.......I've seen a test that was performed using uniform sized aluminum spheres passed through the filter media, backed by high efficiency filter patches that caught the remainder of the particles. The PureONE did not perform anywhere near the level of the three filters that were using a synthetic microglass media. The Fram Xtended Guard, Royal Purple and Amsoil filters soundly stomped the PureONE in filtering ability.

I've seen that 'so called' test posted here too. That patch "test" result was a bunch of hogwash bullshine to put it mildly. It had the same filters ie., Wix and Napa Gold, and Extra Guard orange can and High Mileage filters show up with very different results.

It's laughable that one would compare some patch particle test done in some random guy's basement posted on the internet, to refute/discredit actual results of testing done in a lab under controlled conditions. river_rat's bench testing here, confirmed the P1 to have excellent filtration and flow characteristics. And unlike the patch 'so called test', his results confirmed similar results with filters known to be similar/same, eg., P1 and Bosch Prem, the Honda filter brands (no endcap type). etc.

The point here wasn't that P1 is better or worse than some synthetic fiber filters, it was the specs posted by here by Purolator.

Now, one can disbelieve the engineeers' at Purolator here, one can even call them liars. But, to point to a psuedo scientific patch test as some kind of proof that a filter doesn't meet the specs posted/published here is a joke.
smiley-rolleyes010.gif



Regardless of the small inconsistencies between similar/same filters, the test did accurately show that microglass media outperforms even the best conventional media. The quoted specs for microglass filters aren't even as good as what Purolator was claiming for the PureONE, so it would be logical to question them.
 
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Quote:
.......I've seen a test that was performed using uniform sized aluminum spheres passed through the filter media, backed by high efficiency filter patches that caught the remainder of the particles. The PureONE did not perform anywhere near the level of the three filters that were using a synthetic microglass media. The Fram Xtended Guard, Royal Purple and Amsoil filters soundly stomped the PureONE in filtering ability.

I've seen that 'so called' test posted here too. That patch "test" result was a bunch of hogwash bullshine to put it mildly. It had the same filters ie., Wix and Napa Gold, and Extra Guard orange can and High Mileage filters show up with very different results.

It's laughable that one would compare some patch particle test done in some random guy's basement posted on the internet, to refute/discredit actual results of testing done in a lab under controlled conditions. river_rat's bench testing here, confirmed the P1 to have excellent filtration and flow characteristics. And unlike the patch 'so called test', his results confirmed similar results with filters known to be similar/same, eg., P1 and Bosch Prem, the Honda filter brands (no endcap type). etc.

The point here wasn't that P1 is better or worse than some synthetic fiber filters, it was the specs posted by here by Purolator.

Now, one can disbelieve the engineeers' at Purolator here, one can even call them liars. But, to point to a psuedo scientific patch test as some kind of proof that a filter doesn't meet the specs posted/published here is a joke.
smiley-rolleyes010.gif


Regardless of the small inconsistencies between similar/same filters, the test did accurately show that microglass media outperforms even the best conventional media. The quoted specs for microglass filters aren't even as good as what Purolator was claiming for the PureONE, so it would be logical to question them.
"Small inconsistencies"? When the exact same media(s) show extremely different results at least twice in the same procedure, the accuracy of the entire patch psuedo test can only be viewed as highly dubious at best. But, to then attempt to use that internet procedure as some kind of proof that rates given here by Purolator are false is laughable.

As said, you can doubt or question the published/posted results if you choose. Otoh, I'll take the published results of actual testing done under controlled conditons at face value until proven otherwise, the patch procedure isn't that proof.

The best thing about the patch procedure is the quality of the filter dissection pictures, excellent. As for accuracy of the conclusions reached, not so much.
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac

It's laughable that one would compare some patch particle test done in some random guy's basement posted on the internet, to refute/discredit actual results of testing done in a lab under controlled conditions.


Yes, it's amazing that people put so much trust in some guy's basement experiment over a standardized ISO test procedure that the filter manufactures certify their test results to.

People need to realize that these filter manufactures just can't make up test results without putting themselves into a possible false advertising lawsuit by another filter maker or independent tester than can test to the same ISO test standards with certified equipment. You can bet the other filter manufactures are "checking up" on the others in the advertisement department.
 
Hi grease monkeys,
Been gone awhile going thru two vehicles (both totaled). Been spending awhile doing a lot of catch up. Found humor in how so many argue for their brand of filter because it is 2 - 3 dollars cheaper. I spend more than that driving to/from the auto shop that carries my brand/style of filter! Lately I "discovered" Fram's new Ultra Synthetic oil filter and noticed their claim of 99+% cleaning ability. Had to look hard to find that their claim is for 20 microns and larger. No Thanks! Even Purolator's "old" Pure One filter does much better than that. Now I am looking into Purolator's latest oil filter, the Boss. They state a mileage limit of 15k vs Fram's 20k. Makes sense - a filter that stops more will be at its limits sooner than one that allows the smaller stuff through. Now, as I did once before with Purolator's engineers, I'll be trying to get their beta data. Stay tuned. (Super Busa - you listening?)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: yota4me

From an Amsoil TSB on engine wear:

"The SAE paper summarizes the test results with
the following conclusions:
“Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced
with an increase in filter single pass efficiency.
Compared to a 40u filter, engine wear
was reduced by 50% with 30u filtration. Likewise,
wear was reduced by 70% with 15u filtration.
“Controlling the abrasive contaminants in the
range of 2 to 22u in the lube oil is necessary for
controlling engine wear."


This is the main reason I added bypass oil filtration.

But in the "real world" it probably doesn't matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top