PUREONE BETA RATES!
- Thread starter SHAMUS
- Start date
- Status
Look at the level of 4 micron particles in oil when a filter rated at 50% at 20 microns is used. It will be many magnitudes higher in particle count. Probably be less 4 micron particles in the 99% @ 20u filter than there are 20u particles in the 50% @ 20u filter.
And a single Blackstone lab test is not a detailed and controlled engineering experiment like an official SAE study. Yet some people "latch" on to some single test and think its gospel, and never do more research to see the whole story.
And a single Blackstone lab test is not a detailed and controlled engineering experiment like an official SAE study. Yet some people "latch" on to some single test and think its gospel, and never do more research to see the whole story.
Wow, guys! Just looking for more info - not to start an argument. But, all of you have given me many areas to explore and learn from. I admit, I may still have problems with Fram's cardboard end caps in their base filter. However, using Red Line oil at about $13 a quart, I have no problem with spending more on top of the line filters. (As an admission, being retired, I only drive about 1200 miles a year; yet still change everything at 6 month periods.) Again, THANKS!
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Wow, guys! Just looking for more info - not to start an argument. But, all of you have given me many areas to explore and learn from. I admit, I may still have problems with Fram's cardboard end caps in their base filter. However, using Red Line oil at about $13 a quart, I have no problem with spending more on top of the line filters. (As an admission, being retired, I only drive about 1200 miles a year; yet still change everything at 6 month periods.) Again, THANKS!
Shamus,
First off, thanks for reviving the original thread, I enjoyed reading all the back and forth which uncovered a lot of information. I guess you changed the Topic title by changing it in the Subject box?
Second, I'd re-think using Redline in something that is driven so seldom. I did analyses on Chevron Supreme and Redline in the same engine (2000 GM 3.4L V6), and the wear numbers were the same after the same amount of miles. I had to do at least three complete oil changes (not just run 2 quarts as a flush), before the analyst confirmed no residual oil. He could tell there was still Redline in my Chevron sample because there were elements in there that would not be found in Chevron. This after running the engine for 20 min. with 2 quarts of oil in the crankcase and draining it 3 times. Apparently that was not enough to completely flush out the previous oil.
The analysis showed that the Redline needed to be changed after being in for 4000 miles. The wear numbers for both oils were the same at 2000 miles. So I could change Chevron more often for less money, and probably be doing more good than trying to stretch out the Redline OCI.
Wow, guys! Just looking for more info - not to start an argument. But, all of you have given me many areas to explore and learn from. I admit, I may still have problems with Fram's cardboard end caps in their base filter. However, using Red Line oil at about $13 a quart, I have no problem with spending more on top of the line filters. (As an admission, being retired, I only drive about 1200 miles a year; yet still change everything at 6 month periods.) Again, THANKS!
Shamus,
First off, thanks for reviving the original thread, I enjoyed reading all the back and forth which uncovered a lot of information. I guess you changed the Topic title by changing it in the Subject box?
Second, I'd re-think using Redline in something that is driven so seldom. I did analyses on Chevron Supreme and Redline in the same engine (2000 GM 3.4L V6), and the wear numbers were the same after the same amount of miles. I had to do at least three complete oil changes (not just run 2 quarts as a flush), before the analyst confirmed no residual oil. He could tell there was still Redline in my Chevron sample because there were elements in there that would not be found in Chevron. This after running the engine for 20 min. with 2 quarts of oil in the crankcase and draining it 3 times. Apparently that was not enough to completely flush out the previous oil.
The analysis showed that the Redline needed to be changed after being in for 4000 miles. The wear numbers for both oils were the same at 2000 miles. So I could change Chevron more often for less money, and probably be doing more good than trying to stretch out the Redline OCI.
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
As an admission, being retired, I only drive about 1200 miles a year; yet still change everything at 6 month periods.) Again, THANKS!
I see no reason you couldn't go 1 year between changes unless you're always short tripping and never getting the engine to full operating temperature. Many manufacturers now say x miles/OLM or 1 year, whatever happens first.
As an admission, being retired, I only drive about 1200 miles a year; yet still change everything at 6 month periods.) Again, THANKS!
I see no reason you couldn't go 1 year between changes unless you're always short tripping and never getting the engine to full operating temperature. Many manufacturers now say x miles/OLM or 1 year, whatever happens first.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Went back to Fram's web site and found where they state their efficiency rating is 99% at GREATER than 20 microns. I still do not understand how that is anything to crow about.
Instead of answering my previous question, you are back stating more dissatisfaction with Fram's efficiency?
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Went back to Fram's web site and found where they state their efficiency rating is 99% at GREATER than 20 microns. I still do not understand how that is anything to crow about.
Instead of answering my previous question, you are back stating more dissatisfaction with Fram's efficiency?
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
As an admission, being retired, I only drive about 1200 miles a year; yet still change everything at 6 month periods.) Again, THANKS!
I see no reason you couldn't go 1 year between changes unless you're always short tripping and never getting the engine to full operating temperature. Many manufacturers now say x miles/OLM or 1 year, whatever happens first.
EXACTLY! Yes, you are correct. But just like I carry a .45 and not a .22, I have always tried to over-care for my vehicles. Most are trips to a grocery store, doctor's office, etc, so the engine does not achieve and stay at operating temp for long.
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
As an admission, being retired, I only drive about 1200 miles a year; yet still change everything at 6 month periods.) Again, THANKS!
I see no reason you couldn't go 1 year between changes unless you're always short tripping and never getting the engine to full operating temperature. Many manufacturers now say x miles/OLM or 1 year, whatever happens first.
EXACTLY! Yes, you are correct. But just like I carry a .45 and not a .22, I have always tried to over-care for my vehicles. Most are trips to a grocery store, doctor's office, etc, so the engine does not achieve and stay at operating temp for long.
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Fram shows the ISO 4548-12 (industry standard) rated efficiency on their website for all their oil filters. Purolator doesn't show efficiency with particle size anymore when they changed their filter can colors a couple years ago. The Purolator ONE is still their most efficient filter.
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Fram shows the ISO 4548-12 (industry standard) rated efficiency on their website for all their oil filters. Purolator doesn't show efficiency with particle size anymore when they changed their filter can colors a couple years ago. The Purolator ONE is still their most efficient filter.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Fram shows the ISO 4548-12 (industry standard) rated efficiency on their website for all their oil filters. Purolator doesn't show efficiency with particle size anymore when they changed their filter can colors a couple years ago. The Purolator ONE is still their most efficient filter.
Wait. You're saying that Purolator's PureOne is better than their new Boss? How do you know?
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Fram shows the ISO 4548-12 (industry standard) rated efficiency on their website for all their oil filters. Purolator doesn't show efficiency with particle size anymore when they changed their filter can colors a couple years ago. The Purolator ONE is still their most efficient filter.
Wait. You're saying that Purolator's PureOne is better than their new Boss? How do you know?
In response to my request, here is what Purolator states its beta rate is on the PureONE:
Hi Katrina,
Here are the Beta Ratios for the PureOne that was requested.
Below I put the standard beta ratio chart for comparison.
Micron 5 = B4.8
Micron 10 = B50
Micron 15 = B1000
Micron 20 = B1000
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard
You would typically see
Beta Ratio Efficiency
2....................50%
10....................90%
20....................95%
75....................98.7%
100....................99%
200....................99.5%
1000....................99.9%
----------------------------------------------------------
Using the standard ratio numbers here is our PureONE.
(> = greater than; µm = microns)
B2 = below 5 µm
B10 = 6.69 µm
B20 = >8 µm
B75 = >11 µm
B100 = 11.42 µm
B200 = >13 µm
B1000 = >15 µm
I hope this isn't too confusing.
Just a reminder, guys
Hi Katrina,
Here are the Beta Ratios for the PureOne that was requested.
Below I put the standard beta ratio chart for comparison.
Micron 5 = B4.8
Micron 10 = B50
Micron 15 = B1000
Micron 20 = B1000
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard
You would typically see
Beta Ratio Efficiency
2....................50%
10....................90%
20....................95%
75....................98.7%
100....................99%
200....................99.5%
1000....................99.9%
----------------------------------------------------------
Using the standard ratio numbers here is our PureONE.
(> = greater than; µm = microns)
B2 = below 5 µm
B10 = 6.69 µm
B20 = >8 µm
B75 = >11 µm
B100 = 11.42 µm
B200 = >13 µm
B1000 = >15 µm
I hope this isn't too confusing.
Just a reminder, guys
^^^ That was many years ago when you started this thread in 2009, the Boss didn't even exist then. Here's what Purolator told me when I called them about the efficiency of there current line of oil filters a couple years ago.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4090512/Called_the_%22Purolator#Post4090512
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4090512/Called_the_%22Purolator#Post4090512
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ That was many years ago when you started this thread in 2009, the Boss didn't even exist then. Here's what Purolator told me when I called them about the efficiency of there current line of oil filters a couple years ago.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4090512/Called_the_%22Purolator#Post4090512
Thanks for the info. I was unaware of your findings. However, still waiting for their beta ratios to decide.
^^^ That was many years ago when you started this thread in 2009, the Boss didn't even exist then. Here's what Purolator told me when I called them about the efficiency of there current line of oil filters a couple years ago.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4090512/Called_the_%22Purolator#Post4090512
Thanks for the info. I was unaware of your findings. However, still waiting for their beta ratios to decide.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The blue and red Purolators are basically the same as the old yellow PureOne and the white Classic. The Boss is less efficient as you can see in my link in the previous post.
If the Boss is less efficient than their PureOne, I want to know about it (although I am still waiting for them to send me the beta ratios on the Boss - so at least I can compare them to their data on the PureOne I posted a few years ago). I guess I am going to have to rattle their cage again to get it. I failed to properly express that beta ratios over a range are more important to me than an advertised "efficiency rating." I have also tried to get Fram to provide beta ratios on their ultra whatever; still waiting.
The blue and red Purolators are basically the same as the old yellow PureOne and the white Classic. The Boss is less efficient as you can see in my link in the previous post.
If the Boss is less efficient than their PureOne, I want to know about it (although I am still waiting for them to send me the beta ratios on the Boss - so at least I can compare them to their data on the PureOne I posted a few years ago). I guess I am going to have to rattle their cage again to get it. I failed to properly express that beta ratios over a range are more important to me than an advertised "efficiency rating." I have also tried to get Fram to provide beta ratios on their ultra whatever; still waiting.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
If the Boss is less efficient than their PureOne, I want to know about it (although I am still waiting for them to send me the beta ratios on the Boss - so at least I can compare them to their data on the PureOne I posted a few years ago). I guess I am going to have to rattle their cage again to get it. I failed to properly express that beta ratios over a range are more important to me than an advertised "efficiency rating." I have also tried to get Fram to provide beta ratios on their ultra whatever; still waiting.
I would be very surprised if Purolator gives you an efficiency/beta ratio breakdowm like they did in 2009 when you started this thread. People use to be able to contact Purolator back in those days and the engineers there would actually email you back. Doubt thats going to happen today. All you'll probably get is one data point like I showed in my previous link. But if you get more, then post it up.
Member Motorking (works for Fram) has posted many times that the Ultra is 80% at 5 microns. So it will be interesting if Fram gives you more info.
If the Boss is less efficient than their PureOne, I want to know about it (although I am still waiting for them to send me the beta ratios on the Boss - so at least I can compare them to their data on the PureOne I posted a few years ago). I guess I am going to have to rattle their cage again to get it. I failed to properly express that beta ratios over a range are more important to me than an advertised "efficiency rating." I have also tried to get Fram to provide beta ratios on their ultra whatever; still waiting.
I would be very surprised if Purolator gives you an efficiency/beta ratio breakdowm like they did in 2009 when you started this thread. People use to be able to contact Purolator back in those days and the engineers there would actually email you back. Doubt thats going to happen today. All you'll probably get is one data point like I showed in my previous link. But if you get more, then post it up.
Member Motorking (works for Fram) has posted many times that the Ultra is 80% at 5 microns. So it will be interesting if Fram gives you more info.
Well folks, I've asked them three times so far - and no reply. I give up. But thanks to all of you for your input and info.
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Fair enough, but then you're not dissatisfied with Fram's efficiency. You're dissatisfied with Fram's way of reporting of said efficiency. Of course, Purolator has changed how they report things, too, and Wix whitewashed their beta ratios, and Baldwin/Hastings will respond to queries but not post much directly. So, there are shortcomings in every company's reporting.
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Fair enough, but then you're not dissatisfied with Fram's efficiency. You're dissatisfied with Fram's way of reporting of said efficiency. Of course, Purolator has changed how they report things, too, and Wix whitewashed their beta ratios, and Baldwin/Hastings will respond to queries but not post much directly. So, there are shortcomings in every company's reporting.
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Well folks, I've asked them three times so far - and no reply. I give up. But thanks to all of you for your input and info.
Pretty much what I thought. Might try actually calling them on the phone like I did instead of emailing.
Purolator Response Center Mascot.
Well folks, I've asked them three times so far - and no reply. I give up. But thanks to all of you for your input and info.
Pretty much what I thought. Might try actually calling them on the phone like I did instead of emailing.
Purolator Response Center Mascot.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Fair enough, but then you're not dissatisfied with Fram's efficiency. You're dissatisfied with Fram's way of reporting of said efficiency.
In honor of the ">" sign.
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
I go back a few years ago when I posted the beta ratios of the Purolator One filter, provided by one of their engineers. It surprised most everyone; some questioning it to the point of contacting the same engineer. I can not find any such thing on the Fram filters.
Fair enough, but then you're not dissatisfied with Fram's efficiency. You're dissatisfied with Fram's way of reporting of said efficiency.
In honor of the ">" sign.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
In honor of the ">" sign.
I've successfully avoided explaining that here for an extended period, and hope to keep it that way.
In honor of the ">" sign.
I've successfully avoided explaining that here for an extended period, and hope to keep it that way.
- Status
