Inside a Napa Oil Filter

[Soobs]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa

Wrong ... ONLY 4 of the spin-ons are @ 40 microns; ALL others are at 20 microns. Same deal with the PureONEs.

Do some thread searching for this info if you want to know specifically which 4 Purolators those are ... it's been posted more than once. Hint - they are the smallest sizes.


I've been out of town so this thread has kind of fallen to the wayside, but I wanted to post this to show you were my source for this information is coming from.

All test data for all Purolator Classic oil filters are derived from the Purolator Classic L30001, a large filter, and it rates at 97.5% efficient at 40 microns. I've seen multiple erroneous posts about the Classic's efficiency on BITOG lately. I just checked out several boxes of Classic filters today. They all say the same thing.

The bottom line is this is an efficiency rating for their largest Classic filter being used for advertising purposing on every box. It does not represent each specific oil filter's efficiency rating. And as we all know, efficiency ratings can vary drastically (with identical media) from one filter to another. Some companies choose to publish the all their filter data. Most don't. Why? It would hurt sales.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Soobs
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Soobs
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
I can tell by just looking at the media and amount of pleats in the photo of the NAPA Pro-Select filter that a Classic would compare better without a doubt. You think that Made in China NAPA filter is 97.5% @ 20 microns? I doubt it.


Actually...

Purolator Classics are advertised at 97.5% @ 40 microns based on test data from the L30001.


Why do you say at 40 microns? Purolators says at 20 microns.Purolator classic

Quote:

*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001


Because that's what it says on the box of every Purolator Classic I've ever purchased. Notice how the website refers to test data from the PL30001? On the Classic box (at least for the L14610) it says "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 40 microns on L30001." The website used to use this same footnote data for all Classics. Guess they decided to compare everything to the PureOne.


Like I've said many times ... there are only 4 Purolator spin-on filters that are rated at the 40 microns ... ALL other spin-ons are rated at 20 microns.

You just happen to buy one of them (14610) that has the 40 micron rating. It doesn't mean ALL are rated the same as the 14610.

Next time you are in the store, look at all the boxes on the shelf. You will see others will show ON THE BOX that they are rated at 20 microns.

I've listed a few times on this site which 4 Purolators are rated at 40 microns. Do a search.

This was your original statement:
Originally Posted By: Soobs

Actually...

Purolator Classics are advertised at 97.5% @ 40 microns based on test data from the L30001.


It is wrong, because not all Classics are rated at 40 microns ... ONLY 4 out of a hundred different models are. Get the facts straight, or don't bother posting 'em.

 

[Soobs]

I have to drop by "the big K" today for some odd and ends and I'll take a look at the Classics. If I've posted something wrong I'll correct myself here.

Something I'm a bit hung-up on on though is it's been stated that the 40 micron rating is for four of their smallest filters, yet the data is derived from one of their largest (L30001). And then on the website Purolator says the Classics are 20 micron rated based on a PL30001. A PureOne? Am I the only one seeing a problem with that?

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Soobs

I have to drop by "the big K" today for some odd and ends and I'll take a look at the Classics. If I've posted something wrong I'll correct myself here.

Something I'm a bit hung-up on on though is it's been stated that the 40 micron rating is for four of their smallest filters, yet the data is derived from one of their largest (L30001). And then on the website Purolator says the Classics are 20 micron rated based on a PL30001. A PureOne? Am I the only one seeing a problem with that?


Go back and look at the photos you posted above of the Classic box. It clearly says "L31000" on the Classic box.

I've seen a few similar slight inaccuracies on Purolator's website also. But look at the box.

 

[Soobs]

Oooook,

So the labeling on most of the other models are, in fact, different.

On the 4 smaller Classics it says:

*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 40 microns on L30001 **As applicable

And on the other Classics it says:

*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on L30001 **As applicable

And on the Classic website says:

*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001(typo?) **As applicable

The PureOne footnote on the website is probably a typo, but how does a L30001 rate at 97.5% at 20 microns on one box and 40 microns on another? It's not a big deal, they're all good filters, but I am just curious about that.

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Get the facts straight, or don't bother posting 'em.

Relax... I'm here to learn, report what I have, and discuss. The search engine on BITOG isn't the easiest thing to research with.

 

[Soobs]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa

Go back and look at the photos you posted above of the Classic box. It clearly says "L31000" on the Classic box.

I've seen a few similar slight inaccuracies on Purolator's website also. But look at the box.


I think you meant to type L30001?

And yes, I know it refers to the L30001 on the box. I was just saying the website didn't. Probably just a typo on the web.

 

[danthaman1980]

Purolators have a reputation as high quality filters as well... just try to stay away from cheaper designs with cardboard end caps and nonmetallic center tubes for one simple reason - if the media is breached or the end cap separates from the pleats then most of the oil is bypassing the media and you are getting just about 0% efficiency.

Personally, I use Wix, NG, P1, and M1 filters. Mostly Wix and NG due to price and availability. If I couldn't afford the premium filters I'd opt for the Classics or the NPS.

As far as comparing filtration efficiency - I'd sure be interested in an independent study of filtration efficiency, with side-by-side comparisons of all major designs by Purolator, Wix, Fram, Champion, etc... but to my knowledge no independent tests have been done, so any comparison based on efficiency is subjective - relying mostly on markeing information, not test data.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980

As far as comparing filtration efficiency - I'd sure be interested in an independent study of filtration efficiency, with side-by-side comparisons of all major designs by Purolator, Wix, Fram, Champion, etc... but to my knowledge no independent tests have been done, so any comparison based on efficiency is subjective - relying mostly on markeing information, not test data.

There was one done,here by our member river_rat,we all sent in filters and he tested them.

serch for it....

 

[danthaman1980]

Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: danthaman1980

As far as comparing filtration efficiency - I'd sure be interested in an independent study of filtration efficiency, with side-by-side comparisons of all major designs by Purolator, Wix, Fram, Champion, etc... but to my knowledge no independent tests have been done, so any comparison based on efficiency is subjective - relying mostly on markeing information, not test data.

There was one done,here by our member river_rat,we all sent in filters and he tested them.

serch for it....


Just did, and there's some good info there. Not quite up to SAE or ISO testing standards, but still way more info than one would need to select a great oil filter.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: danthaman1980

As far as comparing filtration efficiency - I'd sure be interested in an independent study of filtration efficiency, with side-by-side comparisons of all major designs by Purolator, Wix, Fram, Champion, etc... but to my knowledge no independent tests have been done, so any comparison based on efficiency is subjective - relying mostly on markeing information, not test data.

There was one done,here by our member river_rat,we all sent in filters and he tested them.

serch for it....


Just did, and there's some good info there. Not quite up to SAE or ISO testing standards, but still way more info than one would need to select a great oil filter.

well yea but a test is a test,and it showed perfectly well the filtering capability's of each,good enough for me/us.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Soobs
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa

Go back and look at the photos you posted above of the Classic box. It clearly says "L31000" on the Classic box.

I've seen a few similar slight inaccuracies on Purolator's website also. But look at the box.


I think you meant to type L30001?

And yes, I know it refers to the L30001 on the box. I was just saying the website didn't. Probably just a typo on the web.

... yeah, fat fingers on my part. Yes, technically Purolator should say the same thing on their website that it says on the box ... 'based on L30001' for the Classics.

 

[labman]

Stopped by the one store that sells Purolators tonight and looked at some of them. I started at the left end of the shelf. Most of the first ones I looked at said 40 microns based on the L30001. There were bigger ones further down that still referenced the L30001 but at 20 microns.

In the end, you judge a brand by its example of the number you use. So if Soobs is disappointed with 97.5% at 40 microns for the L14610, then he has good reason not to buy a Purolator.

I would guess they use the same media in many of the filters. If so, a smaller filter with less media should have the same efficiency, but be more restrictive and load up faster.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: labman
Stopped by the one store that sells Purolators tonight and looked at some of them. I started at the left end of the shelf. Most of the first ones I looked at said 40 microns based on the L30001. There were bigger ones further down that still referenced the L30001 but at 20 microns.


On 4 spin-ons are rated at 40 microns and say such on the box. This was verified by Purolator email traffic and by visual inspection at the store. I've posted which ones they are in other threads.

Originally Posted By: labman
In the end, you judge a brand by its example of the number you use. So if Soobs is disappointed with 97.5% at 40 microns for the L14610, then he has good reason not to buy a Purolator.


99.9% @ 40 microns is probably still better than most filters out there. If he can use a PL14459 instead on his vehicle, it is rated at 99.9% @ 20 microns. That's what I did ... used the 14459 instead of the 14610.

Originally Posted By: labman
I would guess they use the same media in many of the filters. If so, a smaller filter with less media should have the same efficiency, but be more restrictive and load up faster.


The beta ratio is tied to the area of the media it seems - that's why the smaller spin-ons have worse efficiency numbers.

 

[labman]

4? Maybe I should have taken more time to look, but I know I saw at least that many. An amazing coincidence I just happened to look at all 4 of them.

 

[Soobs]

I'm not dissatisfied with 97.5% at 40 microns or (the PureOne version) 99.9% at 40 microns. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things, that's plenty enough. My last car went well over 400,000 miles on filters that were far less efficient. I use Purolator quite often on friends and my own applications. They're great filters.

I was just more curious why some boxes are 40 microns and others 20 microns and both based off the same 30001 model filters. It's the same for the PureOnes I've bought. All 40 micron rated. I think it's just a bit misleading (for me and definitely plenty others) when they think they're going out buying a 20 micron filter and it's, in fact, not. Of course, plenty other models have the 20 micron rating, but the Subaru, Hondas, and Kias I take care of don't cross reference to any of those filters.

Like I said, not a big deal... It's just good to understand what's going on beyond the big marketing claims.

 

[SuperBusa]

Purolator marks the boxes to show the specific filter models that have the 40 micron instead of 20 micron rating (the 4 spin-ons). I agree they could do a better job on their website showing the 4 spin-ons (both in Classic and PureONE models) that have the 40 micron rating, but they probably figure it's too much trouble and too confusing to try and distinguish on the website a difference for only 4 of hundreds of filters they make.

I too use the 14610 on one of my cars, but found out on this site that you can use the 14459 instead if the engine's mounting base will take the fatter filter with no issues. It works on my V6 Altima, and the 14459 has the 20 micron rating on the box.

 

[OVERKILL]

I wonder if the efficiency rating at 40 microns has any carry-over into the rating for Ford's Motorcraft filters........

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I wonder if the efficiency rating at 40 microns has any carry-over into the rating for Ford's Motorcraft filters........


97.5% @ 40 microns (worse Purolator Classic) approx equal to 80% @ 20 microns ??? ... could be.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I wonder if the efficiency rating at 40 microns has any carry-over into the rating for Ford's Motorcraft filters........


97.5% @ 40 microns (worse Purolator Classic) approx equal to 80% @ 20 microns ??? ... could be.


Exactly. Would back up the thought that the Motorcraft media is the same as the Purolator Classic.