PUREONE BETA RATES!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Either that our the filtration rate that Purolator currently publishes can't be spec'd with an "open end" longevity component.

That is, even if these spec's are REAL ..they have to have some qualification to them. Like ..after a limited number of hours of usage they don't apply anymore.

I'm probably not stating this clearly. There are immutable angles to this that cannot be trumped.


Keep in mind that Purolator's 99.9% at 20 microns efficiency spec is based on ISO 4548-12 test methods ... today's standard test method used for automotive filters. The same test method is also used by many other filter manufactures ... so Purolator IS qualifying the spec through a well used test method.

There debris holding capacity testing is also qualified by ISO test methods.
 
Yes, but filter industry insiders will tell you that just because the ISO standard is referenced, there are more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.

But going in a reverse manner, looking at the above two filters, why wouldn't WIX just use the hydraulic media in the automotive can? They could boast and post better beta numbers. The scale of economy is tipped the other way. Surely there's no "fooling" involved with the industrial offerings ..they're not putting half the media in a hollow can.

They don't do this for a reason.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Yes, but filter industry insiders will tell you that just because the ISO standard is referenced, there are more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.


In today's world you can't say your product has 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns per ISO xyz testing methods but then do it some other way to meet the claim without putting the company is some lawsuit potential situation. It could very well be that there has to be some outside witnessing to qualify the claim. Just like SAE actually witnesses the testing and methods for SAE HP claims made by car manufactures.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
But going in a reverse manner, looking at the above two filters, why wouldn't WIX just use the hydraulic media in the automotive can? They could boast and post better beta numbers.


Bad engineering? Bad marketing? Their hydraulic filter media is too expensive? Media too restrictive without using 2 or 3 times as much which increases cost? Could be a number of reasons or factors involved.

Obviously Purolator has a good thing going with their "Micronic" filtering media, which they probably have years of research and perfection efforts invested.
 
Quote:
In today's world you can't say your product has 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns per ISO xyz testing methods but then do it some other way to meet the claim without putting the company is some lawsuit potential situation. It could very well be that there has to be some outside witnessing to qualify the claim. Just like SAE actually witnesses the testing and methods for SAE HP claims made by car manufactures.


I assure you that you are wrong here. The protocols for the ISO spec leave much to be altered. Flow rate ..time base...particle introduction. While I'm not going to pay the $135 to actually read the bona fide protocol, every industry insider has eluded to the fact that the filter man can manipulate the protocol to fit their needs. Effectively producing the repeatable results that they need. Naturally they can't make a silk purse out of sow's ear ...


This is not an indictment of Purolator. It's the industry. That's why I take fantastic claims in the automotive consumer market ..when compared to the industrial market ..with a dose of salt.


..and for the 57th time. Purolator's PureOne is an outstanding filter for the money. Probably the best bang for the buck in terms of upper tier filtration.
 
Man I wish I knew this much about filters.

Quite an interesting
23.gif
going on.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

The protocols for the ISO spec leave much to be altered. Flow rate ..time base...particle introduction. While I'm not going to pay the $135 to actually read the bona fide protocol, every industry insider has eluded to the fact that the filter man can manipulate the protocol to fit their needs. Effectively producing the repeatable results that they need. Naturally they can't make a silk purse out of sow's ear ...


Well, if you think that is the case then naturally every manufacturer is going to twist the ISO spec to give them the best numbers possible. So consider all the specs twisted to the optimum end of the spectrum for all, which still gives you a relative rating between the manufactures.

In my world, test specs are written for a reason ... and such specs like SAE, ISO and Mil-Specs are written in such a way as to leave little "wiggle room".

Personally, I have not seen the details of the ISO 4548-12 test procedure, as like you have said, you need to spend a considerable amount of money to get a copy.
 
Here is a little past history on ISO 4548-12, and also some other ISO test standards used by Purolator (and probably others).

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1475361

Originally Posted By: From Donaldson Company
The ISO 4548/12 multi-pass test is a widely accepted industry standard test used by OEMs for the purpose of evaluating and comparing the efficiency and capacity of liquid filtration products. Test results are an average from the testing of three product samples in accordance with ISO 4548/12 specifications. The ISO 4548/12 specifies ISO 12103 test dust. Test data reported at 25 psid terminal restriction point.


Amsoil also uses the ISO 4548-12 test standard ... along with probably every major filter manufacture on the market today.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1378880
 
No argument from me. I've read all that before. If you want to do the search, find the posting by Filter Guy. As I've said before, he was in sales ..but knew enough people in the engineering lab to get the real story on ISO protocols.
 
What's the average cost of a hydraulic spin-on filter vs. an automotive spin-on filter of the same size, quality and performance?

Is there anything else "special" about a hydraulic filter that would warrant additional cost? (ie, construction, pressure relief design, burst pressure requirements, etc)?

Amsoil says the EaO is 98.7% efficient at 15 microns (per ISO 4548-12), which probably equates to approx. 99.9% at 20 microns like the PureONE. Obviously the price of a filter is determined by many factors ... just not the cost of materials, machines, facilities and manpower to make it happen. If a company has much more overhead to operate, then naturally they must charge more money for their products to stay in business.
 
The average filter must cost $0.50 to send down the line (automotive or equivalent). The rest has to be attributed to marketing or ROI on each level of distribution. My son's outfit gets filter for under a buck. T&M should not change much. Even if you tripled the cost of the media ..what would it amount to? Triple the ROI outside of marketing. M1, RP, ..you're paying for the banner. Amsoil, you're probably paying a good bit for the SYNTEQ license.
 
I'm talking about retail prices between a hydraulic spin-on vs. an automotive spin-on in the same size, quality and performance. Ideally, in the same brand to see if there is a huge spread in price between them. If the same company makes both and has a huge price difference, there has to be a reason besides materials.
 
Forgot to also mention that hydraulic filters may be tested by a different standard than ISO 4548-12, which is entitled "Methods of Testing Full-flow Lubricating Oil Filters for Internal Combustion Engines".

Since hydraulic filters are not considered applicable to internal combustion engines, it could be their beta ratios are obtained through different test procedures which could skew the beta ratio comparison between them and automotive filters.
 
Well, we can keep spinning up excuses NOT to try and explain the discrepancy. It's entirely up to you
21.gif


..and again ..for the 452nd time ..Purolator PureOne filters are a great value.
lol.gif
 
Well, there ya go. Different test standards will most likely yield different beta ratios between hydraulic filters (tested per ISO 16889) and automotive filters (tested per ISO 4548-12).

I don't think anyone is arguing if the PureONE is a good value or not ... anyone who knows anything about filters already knows that. It does what other automotive filters do that cost twice or three times as much.
wink.gif
 
So, you know this means that this IS true, correct?


..or is this just convenient? Tell us how the hydraulic standard makes they inferior in performance (spec's/stats) to automotive filters. Tell us how the tests differ since you're telling us that this IS the reason.

How so? Just "because"??

They're great filters. Have I mentioned that?
 
Read my post above your last one. I said "different test standards will most likely yield different beta ratios ... "

If two filters are not tested exactly the same using exactly the same test standard, then there is room for different results. You said this yourself not too long ago ... that these tests can be ran in different ways to get different results. Well, when different test standards are used, then this becomes even a bigger issue.

Your record is broken ... nobody is arguing one way or the other about how great or not great the PureONE is.

The debate that you seemed to have started on a tangent is "how can a PureONE perform like or better than a hydraulic filter for a fraction of the cost?" We've tried to come up with some reasons ... it is what it is.

You know a PureONE and an EaO perform about the same - they have close to the same beta ratio using the same ISO 4548-12 test standard. So why does an EaO perform better than a hydraulic filter? The PureONE is not unique ... there are many automotive filters that perform in the same high efficiency performance class.
 
There is no "magic" involved to make an automotive filter perform as good or better than a hydraulic filter ... the EaO and other top tier filters can also do it. So, it seems the real heartburn here is: "How can a PureONE do the same thing at half or a third of the cost of all other top tier filters?" Isn't that the real quandary here?

I really don't get the hang up.
21.gif
 
THIS WILL BE MY LAST EFFORT TO GET THE ORIGINAL PUROLATOR ENGINEER (BRIAN CRAWFORD) TO RESPOND IN WRITING TO THIS CONFUSION. IF HE DOES NOT REPLY IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, LET'S LET THIS THREAD DIE.



Mr Crawford,

There appears to be a large difference between the beta ratios you provided (to Katrina) and the efficiency ratings she gives. Can you explain, please?


From: Hull Katrina (AA-FI/MKT1-NA)
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:24:35 AM
Subject: RE: PureONE Oil Filter

Hi,

I have listed the table below for you in regards to the micron's and efficiency of the PureOne filters. Let me know if you need further assistance.

MICRON SIZE
TYPE 5 10 15 20 25 30 40
PureOne 51.3% 92.8% 99.20% 99.9% 100% 100% 100%

Katrina S. Hull
-------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch, LLC
Light Automotive Filtration Division
AA-FI/MKT1-NA
www.purolatorautofilters.net

*Thank you for your loyalty to our Purolator Filtration products. I will review your request and repsond promptly.*


Mon, August 17, 2009 1:22:40 PM
To: Hull Katrina (AA-FI/ Re: FW: PureONE Beta RatiosMKT1-NA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hull Katrina (AA-FI/MKT1-NA)
Subject: FW: PureONE Beta Ratios
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 5:57 PM

Hi,

I have contacted our Quality Engineering Department in regards to your request. Please see details below.

Katrina S. Hull
-------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch, LLC
AA-FI/MKT1-NA
www.purolatorautofilters.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Crawford, Brian [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:52 AM
To: Hull Katrina (AA-FI/MKT1-NA)
Subject: RE: PureONE Beta Ratios

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.
Best regards,
Brian


Sr. Product Engineer, IAM Product Engineering | Purolator Filters NA LLC
3200 Natal St. | Fayetteville, NC 28306
Phone: 910-426-4279 | Fax: 910-425-9953
[email protected] www.pureoil.com
KEEP IT PURE

From: Hull Katrina (AA-FI/MKT1-NA)
Subject: FW: PureONE Beta Ratios
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 5:57 PM

I have contacted our Quality Engineering Department in regards to your request. Please see details below.

Katrina S. Hull
-------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch, LLC
AA-FI/MKT1-NA
www.purolatorautofilters.net
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
Beta Ratio and how and why to use it instead of efficiency rating
Replies
8
Views
2K
ZeeOSix
P
  • Locked
articles on beta ratio and efficiency
Replies
1
Views
5K
ZeeOSix
dnewton3
  • Locked
micron effeciency (rating) versus insolubles
Replies
4
Views
2K
daman
Back
Top