PureOne vs. Mobil1 filter - which is better?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
285
Location
Vancouver, BC
I have been using PureOne filters on my Accord since I started doing my own oil changes a couple of years ago. Seems to be it is quality filter.

Oreily (sp?) has a deal for 5 qt of SynPower and a Mobil1 filter, so I stopped by and picked it up yesterday.

I have never seen the Mobil1 filter before, but if price is any indication, it must be high end (close to twice the price of a PureOne). Are they good for extended OCI's?

If so, maybe it is a bit of a waste with SynPower, since that particular oil is not meant for extended OCI?
 
Great filter, don't worry about the Synpower not being a good extended drain oil (it is not IMO) it is a great oil so please don't beat me up too bad. When you change the Synpower just leave the M1 on it can take 15K with a well maintained engine. They are very good quality. Keep the baby on there!
 
Mobil 1 oil filters are a quality product as is the PureOne. Both are of similar construction i.e Metal end caps , silicon ADBV etc. The differences are in the filter media as the PureOne is a paper cellulose media and the Mobil 1 is a Paper Cellulose/Synthetic material hybrid. I would just use the Mobil filter as you would a PureOne in your regular oci, no need to continue using it onto your next one.
 
Quote:
M1 filters better, has a thicker can, and is purttier
Can you source the M1 filters better? Better than 99.9@ 20um, really? Can thickness never been an issue IME with pc applications, even orange can.

Spurious comments aside, M1 is a fine filter and if your oci's are >10k in a year than the M1EP could be the filter of choice. Recently though one has been able to obtain ~4 P1's at AAP for the price of 1 M1. But, M1EP purchased in an oil/filter promo for an extended oci would also make the M1EP a value.

Quote:
If so, maybe it is a bit of a waste with SynPower, since that particular oil is not meant for extended OCI?
SynPower with M1EP would make a fine extended 10k+/1year oci combination, IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Quote:
M1 filters better, has a thicker can, and is purttier
Can you source the M1 filters better? Better than 99.9@ 20um, really? Can thickness never been an issue IME with pc applications, even orange can.

Spurious comments aside, M1 is a fine filter and if your oci's are >10k in a year than the M1EP could be the filter of choice. Recently though one has been able to obtain ~4 P1's at AAP for the price of 1 M1. But, M1EP purchased in an oil/filter promo for an extended oci would also make the M1EP a value.

Quote:
If so, maybe it is a bit of a waste with SynPower, since that particular oil is not meant for extended OCI?
SynPower with M1EP would make a fine extended 10k+/1year oci combination, IMO.



You really do believe what anyone will tell you. He can't prove M1 filters are better just as you can't prove a P1 is better.
 
35.gif
 
I've used several of the M1 filters, only if they are part of an OC special though because they are more expensive than a P1 filter. They are very well made filters, and after using them in three different applications I have no reported noise issues even if the vehicle sits for long periods of time not being used.
 
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
You really do believe what anyone will tell you. He can't prove M1 filters are better just as you can't prove a P1 is better.
In this case, if "anyone" is the manufacturer/Purolator, correct. I can prove what the manufacturer states, can YOU prove Purolator is lying?
whistle.gif
Didn't think so. Not a surprising comment though, from a dedicated Purolator hater.
56.gif
 
I'd lean towards P1 for regular intervals, M1 EP for extended. A little more filtration vs. a little more capacity and better build.
 
Sure,man. Daman measured the metal can thickness right here. P1 .165....M1 .180. btanchors has been running filter tests in the Uoa section. The P1 didn't filter as well as the M1. Ain't you keepin' up on current events? Point made,I have nothing against the P1 and will probably try one in the future.
 
So your source is anecdotal experience based on UOA(s), not efficiency tests? And that would have more validity than the manufacturers (P1/M1) tests of efficiency?
whistle.gif


Now, if one wants to look at anecdotal experience, river_rat's bench testing showed P1 filtration ahead of M1. It's a good read, check it out. Point made, but not taken.

Also never said M1 can wasn't thicker, said it was a non factor in my experience with pc applications.

fwiw, post never said M1 wasn't a good filter, quite the opposite. Simply defining differences and questioning sources.
 
I agree with sayjac, I don't think you can beat P1 for catching the bittiest bits the soonestest...at least for an off the shelf filter. M1 does good, though, and is tough built.

Pick your poison (and your price)
 
Originally Posted By: river_rat
I agree with sayjac, I don't think you can beat P1 for catching the bittiest bits the soonestest...at least for an off the shelf filter. M1 does good, though, and is tough built.

Pick your poison (and your price)

Got to thinking I likely didn't do your bench tests/findings justice calling them anecdotal. It was a test, and sometimes retest, of many filters under some controlled conditions, unlike the other anecdotal experience previously mentioned. And, your comment regarding cost, is a factor worth noting.
cheers3.gif
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Got to thinking I likely didn't do your bench tests/findings justice calling them anecdotal.

They are anecdotal. YMMV. I was originally picking a filter for my use, and since putting dirt through media and comparing the results to visual media observations and relative bubble points ain't exactly rocket science, (just messy and time consuming) I figured the results were good enough for my use as long as the conditions were identical, and they repeatedly showed the same results.

In short, Hey look, this filter with the really tight woven blended media repeatedly stops way more dirt than this one with the thin, pin-holed course paper media! Gee, I'll use "Filter A" on my car!

Especially since the "reported" SAE/ISO efficiencies are too often incomplete and proprietory... "Stops 99% of harmful contaminants" "99.2% efficient" "10 microns nominal"--(regarding Mobil 1 filter on the telephone to tech).
What the heck do these mean?

I just decided to share the results for anyone who wanted to see.
thumbsup2.gif
 
Filters have feelings,too,so you should stop mistreating them. The btanchors Uoa included ISO particle counts for the filters tested. The P1 allowed more,and bigger, particles thru,than did the M1 or the Amsoil filters. Interestingly,the engine wear metals were about the same,no matter which filter was tested. So,boys. Who am I gonna believe;You,or my lyin' eyes?
 
The M1 filter has a threaded end bypass IIRC, which makes it a "better" filter in the eyes of Ford for example, who seems to have an affinity for that filter design style.

I wish the P1's I have had that design. But for the price I got them at, I really cannot complain.
 
Originally Posted By: FZ1
The btanchors Uoa included ISO particle counts for the filters tested. The P1 allowed more,and bigger, particles thru,than did the M1 or the Amsoil filters. Interestingly,the engine wear metals were about the same,no matter which filter was tested. So,boys. Who am I gonna believe;You,or my lyin' eyes?

So case closed because of one UOA? have any more you could post up to show a pattern?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top