PureONE or Distance Plus?

[Falcon_LS]

I realize part of this topic has been beaten to death (PureONE vs. Motorcraft), and have read threads dating right back to 2002. There's everything from Ford providing the media to Purolator for the FL-820S to the shell on the PureONE only being 0.09" thick.

I currently run an FL-820S on my Ford 4.6, although at one point I have used the Bosch Distance Plus D3410. I know Ford makes a big deal about the bypass, but I never really had any issues with the D3410 over an almost 7,000 mile interval.

I don't really run super extended drain intervals, because of the high levels of sulfur in our gas. Roughly 6,250 miles is the limit. I also replace my air filter at every oil change as cheap insurance (drive in extremely dusty conditions). The Motorcraft is a great filter, there's no doubt. But I'm really looking for more media and a higher rate of filtration. Worth noting, I'm also switching and will be staying with PU Euro 5W-40.

Given the Purolator PureONE and the Bosch Distance Plus, which would be a better option? Neither filter is available locally, so it's going to be a case of either from the States to last me a good while. Thanks!

 

[Donald]

I say the D+

 

[Loobed]

I have more Pure-One filters in my stash than Distance Plus filters. I paid less than $3 for a P1 filter, and under $7 for a distance plus filter. The D+ looks stronger but I don't think it is better than the P1 for normal drain interval. I will be leaving my D+ filter on for two oil changes, where otherwise I replace my P1 every oil change. Unless your oil filter is exposed and might get damaged by rocks, I don't think the thinner case makes much difference. I would guess the steel is still stronger than the gasket which would blow out first.

I would buy whatever costs less, unless you have money to throw away.

 

[OilNerd]

Given that your max OCI is going to be under 7,000 miles, I'd go with the P1.

Excellent filtration, flow, and they've done well with longer intervals and are cheaper than the D+. Get the latest AAP codes and save even more. The D+ is good, too, but your interval just doesn't fully utilize it.

My

.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
.....I don't really run super extended drain intervals, because of the high levels of sulfur in our gas. Roughly 6,250 miles is the limit....

Given the Purolator PureONE and the Bosch Distance Plus, which would be a better option?

Unless you can get the BD+ for the same price as the P1(very doubtful), for a 6-7k/1year oci, the P1 is all you need. I regularly run the P1 that long. 10+k or two oci filter change interval BD+ becomes a more cost effective option, but overkill imo for your oci. As for can thickness, in 40+ years dyi oil change, it's never been an issue with any filter.

 

[KCJeep]

I concur, the D+ is overkill for that kind of OCI you'd be wasting your money.

 

[MarkStock]

Strangely enough, I've also been reading the same threads as you, but basically to establish the filtering efficiency of the Purolators vs the Boschs (and other options).

PureOne is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns. 99.2% at 15 microns and 50% at 10 microns.

Distance Plus is 99.9% efficient at (I believe) 25 microns.

Since you are worried enough about filtration to change your air filter 3 to 4 times more often than average, then I would go with the PureOne.

Also, consider that your new air filter is less efficient at first and since you are changing it 3 to 4 times more often than average, you have 3 to 4 times more occassions where it is less efficient than average.

If you keep on doing this, maybe you should check or change your oil filter at the manufacturer's recommended interval which I guess would be 5000 miles, not assume it can go out to 7000 miles.

Also, perhaps you could vac the air filter and reuse it instead of changing it so often. It'll actually be more effective with some loading.

If you buy a case, check out the price of the Bosch Premium 3410 which is the same as the P1.

Lastly, I went from seven years of FL820s to Bosch Premium, and it seems my oil has stayed cleaner than before. The car also seems to be running smoother, so perhaps the synthetic oil and a better filter has been effective in some cleaning that I didn't think was necessary.

 

[DuckRyder]

There is also a synthetic available (PSL) and priced between the D+ and P1. FWIW

 

[Sayjac]

IMO unless the same cost, the Puro Synthetic would still be overkill for the OP's stated oci.

As for the efficiency of the BD+, I've never seen any authoritative listing. I would assume though that it would be similar to the P1. The PSL Synthetic is 99@25um.

All this said, the Motorcraft FL-820S tested to ~94%@20um in recent Amsoil testing, and could also easily do the OP's stated oci. Depending on price I certainly wouldn't rule out using the 820S vs a P1.

 

[MarkStock]

To my mind, there seems to be a huge difference between a P1/BP and a MC.

99.9% at 20 microns is 80 times better than 94%. It's 1 particle per 1000 not trapped vs 80 particles per 1000.

The number of particles let through beneath 20 microns will increase exponentially. Between 5 and 15 microns is the size that causes engine wear.

With the P1/BP at 99.2% at 15 microns, falling to 50% at 10 microns, the MC must be pretty bad at the same micron levels if it starts at 94% at 20 microns!

 

[Sayjac]

Motorcraft OEM filters are a well respected filter on this board and there's more to a filter than some math calculations of x better. While I like P1's and use them myself, for Ford applications as is the OP's, Motorcraft is more than up to the task. Doubt one will find many if any long time posters here saying 'Motorcraft must be pretty bad', especially now that it's tested 94%@20um in Amsoil oem filter ISO testing.

Also, I'd like to see an athoritative 'ISO testing procedure' link showing P1 to 99.2% at 15um. If there is one it should be posted as afaik one has never been posted showing those results.

 

[OilNerd]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Motorcraft OEM filters are a well respected filter on this board and there's more to a filter than some math calculations of x better. While I like P1's and use them myself, for Ford applications as is the OP's, Motorcraft is more than up to the task. Doubt one will find many if any long time posters here saying 'Motorcraft must be pretty bad', especially now that it's tested 94%@20um in Amsoil oem filter ISO testing.

Also, I'd like to see an athoritative 'ISO testing procedure' link showing P1 to 99.2% at 15um. If there is one it should be posted as afaik one has never been posted.

What I don't get about Motorcraft filters, is why Ford hides the (ISO 4548-12) testing data? It doesn't test badly, so that's not it. The only official stuff I've seen is years old (c2005) and underwhelming (80% @ 20um), obviously a low-ball, minimum figure. AC Delco is just as bad, or worse, at publishing their data.

It's sad that the only recent ISO 4548-12 test data we have on a MC filter is from a competitor.

 

[Sayjac]

If you look at the majority if not all the OEM's they don't publish efficiency ratings. I suppose as oem's they don't find in necessary to advertise/promote efficiency ratings like the aftermarkets. And you are correct, up until the Amsoil test Motorcraft only had something like at least 80% @ 20um published, which afaik relatively recently has been dropped from official publication. However, as far as I'm concerned with the Amsoil oem oil filter testing that is now a moot point.

It is true though, that the best promotion regarding Motorcraft oil filter efficiency comes, in this case, from Amsoil.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Also, I'd like to see an athoritative 'ISO testing procedure' link showing P1 to 99.2% at 15um. If there is one it should be posted as afaik one has never been posted showing those results.


Sayjac - I recall a thread in this forum quite a while ago (maybe 1~2 years ago?) where someone emailed Purolator Tech Support and they were given the efficiency percentages at different micron levels all the way down to 5 microns I believe. If that info came from Purolator engineering, then it probably was based on ISO testing.

 

[Sayjac]

^^^I just googled it and did find it posted sourced as a response email from Puro tech/engineering dept. on a couple of other forums. Just didn't remember the 15um efficiency level previously posted on Bitog.

Nevertheless, cost being similar or less than a P1, I'd have no issue with the FL-820S being a solid option in the OP's Ford application.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Buy whichever's cheapest. Both protect and serve beyond the norm.