The "pound sand" responses from Puro are sure not impressing me.
Holy Purolator Flip Flop!
- Thread starter possum328
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Turk
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
The "pound sand" responses from Puro are sure not impressing me.
Yea, I'm totally done with Purolator.
That's too bad, because I buy A LOT of oil filters!
Yep, just went to wix.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
The "pound sand" responses from Puro are sure not impressing me.
Yea, I'm totally done with Purolator.
That's too bad, because I buy A LOT of oil filters!
Yep, just went to wix.
MrQuackers
Site Donor 2024
I was at Lowe's and on an end display were some Fram filters and the ones speced for my car (PH3614) were only $1.59! I bought all they had. Unfortunately it was only a quantity of 3. Good for 5k runs which is more mileage than I do.
Last edited:
WCOD
White Can of Death?
White Can of Death?
dnewton3
Staff member
Yup. The OCOD's long-lost cousin twice remvoed ...
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
That really doesn't answer my question, because there isn't a rational answer to say that only guys on BITOG that happen to cut open oil filters are the guys who get bad Purolator filters with media tears.
You haven't presented a question to answer. You've presented an argument in favor of a hypothesis.
There is not enough objective information for you to reach any conclusions that could be projected onto the universe of Purolator filters. No amount of speculation is going to turn anecdotal evidence into something statistically meaningful.
Nothing prevents you from reaching some personal conclusions as to whether or not you wish to use Purolator filters.
The bottom line is that gut feelings and intuition based on less than "ideal statistical data" is still usually right. I've seen it happen many times in cases just like this.
This is my first post. I had to wait some hours for registration to go through, so I lost some verve, so I'll keep this post relatively simple. I am not trying to rile up old arguments. However, the point is, I've lurked these forums on and off for years, always seeking intelligent discussion on elusive tribology answers.
I was motivated to register last night. Why? Because after days of taking note of the Purolator issue, in my search for an optimal lubrication solution for my built 4AGE, my irritation pushed me to register. I was irritated that almost nobody on this site was calling this Purolator "fiasco" for what it clearly is.
In short, ZeeOSix, you are right. There is a problem here. The statistical analysis angle in this thread is a rather moot point. Your "gut" feeling is actually a quite rationally discernible reality - the failures in this case are completely indicative of a design flaw from Purolator engineering. I will probably do some more reading here and create a more useful, focused discussion topic. But I wanted to support what your "gut" is saying, and point out the problem. Others have touched on it, you included, but most dont see it:
While various factors may contribute to these failures - rigid seam crimp (strain discontinuities), assembly errors, media physical/strength properties, bypass performance, etc - the clear problem is a design flaw. I contend the design flaw is in fact the "V" shaped geometry of the filter media, and its interaction with the bonded ends/plates. Quite simply, the pleats in these zones are unsupported against pressure loads. They experience pressure load with only the tear strength of the media (local to the bonded ends) to resist it, hence tearing ensues. All other pleats are pressed against each other. They mutually support each other so that pressure loading can only deflect the media "so much" thereby limiting strain, and avoiding tearing. The pleats near a seam need to be configured in the same way, but are normally angled away from the seam for purposes of assembly logistics. This was not done with these failing filters. Now, it's possible that these configurations were a random result due to an error in manufacturing, but I am doubting that, as certainly any proper inspection system would have caught the flaw, and that responsibility still falls on engineering.
In short, the "V" configuration is the prerequisite for this failure mode. Other factors may contribute, and failure is not guaranteed. But I assert that you wont find this tearing unless that "V" configuration is present. Note, the vertex of the "V" must be pointing outward, not inward. Again, it is in this arrangement that the pleats will experience high deformation due to lack of mutual support, leading to tearing. My hypothesis is easily disproven, with a single example, if somone can find one.
To briefly touch on and rebut the statistical arguments. Following proper statistical methods for diagnostics is always important. In this instance however, that the fact that BITOG community members are finding these problems, does not pan out to be a predisposing factor. While confirmation bias can skew data, in this case looking closely at the statistical concerns demonstrates no such expectations.
Essentially, the ideal sampling method would be "open 100, or 1000, or whatnot, filters, and report what portion has this flaw." That is certainly not what's happening here. People find flaws, and report, but usually, those that find no flaws, see little reason to report. Again, generally - it's well known that community forums are typically replete with common complaints, but are rarely filled with reports of met expectations. At this point though, it's a different situation. It is clear now that users here are reporting on Purolator dissections regardless the findings, and some are finding no tears. In my casual observation, I'm seeing many more reports of torn media than untorn. Other factors come into play as well, like service duration.
There are a few other things to keep in mind. We must define what "normal" performance is, both for Purolator filters, and filters in general. These failures are absolutely not normal or acceptable by any design engineer's definition, nor are they random failures. They follow a consistent, specific failure mode. This alone indicates a specific cause.
Another thing to keep in mind is that it is safe to assume that this discovery occurred randomly. It could have happened with any filter type which BITOG users may be using, but it happened with this brand. Now, perhaps BITOG users use Purolator more than other brands. Is there a significant enough skew to put us where we are now? I very much doubt it.
What I'm getting at is, if we take the statistical concerns point by point, we can see that there is little or no reason to suspect that we are seeing something "normal" and improperly ascribing them to be abnormal.
If these were otherwise random failure modes, proper statistical sampling methods would be required to correctly ascertain the extent of this problem in the population. In this case, the failure mode is essentially identified as a design flaw. Design flaws effect 100% of the designs containing the flaw.
Finally, I'd say, these flaws may or may not lead to any serious consequences to end users, but it is certainly quite possible that nontrivial engine damage could result. The size of these tears, when deflected under pressure, seem like they may indeed exceed the flow of a bypass valve. I view this as a clear engineering design flaw, that would not have happened with prudent design methods. It's hard to comprehend how a filter maker could make such an obvious error. Possibly a random oversight... Thoughts of industrial espionage/sabotage came to mind... Regardless, my faith in Purolator went to zero. Then again, we cant assume other brands are immune to the same issues. The only solution is to always inspect the actual product being used, both before and after being placed in service.
Again, Id like to see BITOG start something more in line with scientific investigation of these failures. A proper discussion topic, maybe a poll, some manner of assessing the situation. I may start something like this myself, this weekend. I dont expect Purolator to be forthcoming in the interest of the end user. Their first priority right now is understandably to protect their reputation.
Dang, I said I'd keep this short. LOL.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
That really doesn't answer my question, because there isn't a rational answer to say that only guys on BITOG that happen to cut open oil filters are the guys who get bad Purolator filters with media tears.
You haven't presented a question to answer. You've presented an argument in favor of a hypothesis.
There is not enough objective information for you to reach any conclusions that could be projected onto the universe of Purolator filters. No amount of speculation is going to turn anecdotal evidence into something statistically meaningful.
Nothing prevents you from reaching some personal conclusions as to whether or not you wish to use Purolator filters.
The bottom line is that gut feelings and intuition based on less than "ideal statistical data" is still usually right. I've seen it happen many times in cases just like this.
This is my first post. I had to wait some hours for registration to go through, so I lost some verve, so I'll keep this post relatively simple. I am not trying to rile up old arguments. However, the point is, I've lurked these forums on and off for years, always seeking intelligent discussion on elusive tribology answers.
I was motivated to register last night. Why? Because after days of taking note of the Purolator issue, in my search for an optimal lubrication solution for my built 4AGE, my irritation pushed me to register. I was irritated that almost nobody on this site was calling this Purolator "fiasco" for what it clearly is.
In short, ZeeOSix, you are right. There is a problem here. The statistical analysis angle in this thread is a rather moot point. Your "gut" feeling is actually a quite rationally discernible reality - the failures in this case are completely indicative of a design flaw from Purolator engineering. I will probably do some more reading here and create a more useful, focused discussion topic. But I wanted to support what your "gut" is saying, and point out the problem. Others have touched on it, you included, but most dont see it:
While various factors may contribute to these failures - rigid seam crimp (strain discontinuities), assembly errors, media physical/strength properties, bypass performance, etc - the clear problem is a design flaw. I contend the design flaw is in fact the "V" shaped geometry of the filter media, and its interaction with the bonded ends/plates. Quite simply, the pleats in these zones are unsupported against pressure loads. They experience pressure load with only the tear strength of the media (local to the bonded ends) to resist it, hence tearing ensues. All other pleats are pressed against each other. They mutually support each other so that pressure loading can only deflect the media "so much" thereby limiting strain, and avoiding tearing. The pleats near a seam need to be configured in the same way, but are normally angled away from the seam for purposes of assembly logistics. This was not done with these failing filters. Now, it's possible that these configurations were a random result due to an error in manufacturing, but I am doubting that, as certainly any proper inspection system would have caught the flaw, and that responsibility still falls on engineering.
In short, the "V" configuration is the prerequisite for this failure mode. Other factors may contribute, and failure is not guaranteed. But I assert that you wont find this tearing unless that "V" configuration is present. Note, the vertex of the "V" must be pointing outward, not inward. Again, it is in this arrangement that the pleats will experience high deformation due to lack of mutual support, leading to tearing. My hypothesis is easily disproven, with a single example, if somone can find one.
To briefly touch on and rebut the statistical arguments. Following proper statistical methods for diagnostics is always important. In this instance however, that the fact that BITOG community members are finding these problems, does not pan out to be a predisposing factor. While confirmation bias can skew data, in this case looking closely at the statistical concerns demonstrates no such expectations.
Essentially, the ideal sampling method would be "open 100, or 1000, or whatnot, filters, and report what portion has this flaw." That is certainly not what's happening here. People find flaws, and report, but usually, those that find no flaws, see little reason to report. Again, generally - it's well known that community forums are typically replete with common complaints, but are rarely filled with reports of met expectations. At this point though, it's a different situation. It is clear now that users here are reporting on Purolator dissections regardless the findings, and some are finding no tears. In my casual observation, I'm seeing many more reports of torn media than untorn. Other factors come into play as well, like service duration.
There are a few other things to keep in mind. We must define what "normal" performance is, both for Purolator filters, and filters in general. These failures are absolutely not normal or acceptable by any design engineer's definition, nor are they random failures. They follow a consistent, specific failure mode. This alone indicates a specific cause.
Another thing to keep in mind is that it is safe to assume that this discovery occurred randomly. It could have happened with any filter type which BITOG users may be using, but it happened with this brand. Now, perhaps BITOG users use Purolator more than other brands. Is there a significant enough skew to put us where we are now? I very much doubt it.
What I'm getting at is, if we take the statistical concerns point by point, we can see that there is little or no reason to suspect that we are seeing something "normal" and improperly ascribing them to be abnormal.
If these were otherwise random failure modes, proper statistical sampling methods would be required to correctly ascertain the extent of this problem in the population. In this case, the failure mode is essentially identified as a design flaw. Design flaws effect 100% of the designs containing the flaw.
Finally, I'd say, these flaws may or may not lead to any serious consequences to end users, but it is certainly quite possible that nontrivial engine damage could result. The size of these tears, when deflected under pressure, seem like they may indeed exceed the flow of a bypass valve. I view this as a clear engineering design flaw, that would not have happened with prudent design methods. It's hard to comprehend how a filter maker could make such an obvious error. Possibly a random oversight... Thoughts of industrial espionage/sabotage came to mind... Regardless, my faith in Purolator went to zero. Then again, we cant assume other brands are immune to the same issues. The only solution is to always inspect the actual product being used, both before and after being placed in service.
Again, Id like to see BITOG start something more in line with scientific investigation of these failures. A proper discussion topic, maybe a poll, some manner of assessing the situation. I may start something like this myself, this weekend. I dont expect Purolator to be forthcoming in the interest of the end user. Their first priority right now is understandably to protect their reputation.
Dang, I said I'd keep this short. LOL.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
While various factors may contribute to these failures - rigid seam crimp (strain discontinuities), assembly errors, media physical/strength properties, bypass performance, etc - the clear problem is a design flaw. I contend the design flaw is in fact the "V" shaped geometry of the filter media, and its interaction with the bonded ends/plates. Quite simply, the pleats in these zones are unsupported against pressure loads. They experience pressure load with only the tear strength of the media (local to the bonded ends) to resist it, hence tearing ensues. All other pleats are pressed against each other. They mutually support each other so that pressure loading can only deflect the media "so much" thereby limiting strain, and avoiding tearing. The pleats near a seam need to be configured in the same way, but are normally angled away from the seam for purposes of assembly logistics.
I have actually mentioned the large "V" at the ends of the pleats where they are glued into the end caps in a couple of these discussion threads as a possible contributing factor. It's always the pleats next to the seam that have the large "V" configuration, and it also seems the tears only occur on the filters with the metal crimped seam.
Note that the pleat on the other side of the seam on this filter does not have a large "V" at the base, but the one that tore did.
Good input for a first post. Glad we could finally get you to register.
While various factors may contribute to these failures - rigid seam crimp (strain discontinuities), assembly errors, media physical/strength properties, bypass performance, etc - the clear problem is a design flaw. I contend the design flaw is in fact the "V" shaped geometry of the filter media, and its interaction with the bonded ends/plates. Quite simply, the pleats in these zones are unsupported against pressure loads. They experience pressure load with only the tear strength of the media (local to the bonded ends) to resist it, hence tearing ensues. All other pleats are pressed against each other. They mutually support each other so that pressure loading can only deflect the media "so much" thereby limiting strain, and avoiding tearing. The pleats near a seam need to be configured in the same way, but are normally angled away from the seam for purposes of assembly logistics.
I have actually mentioned the large "V" at the ends of the pleats where they are glued into the end caps in a couple of these discussion threads as a possible contributing factor. It's always the pleats next to the seam that have the large "V" configuration, and it also seems the tears only occur on the filters with the metal crimped seam.
Note that the pleat on the other side of the seam on this filter does not have a large "V" at the base, but the one that tore did.
Good input for a first post. Glad we could finally get you to register.
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
In short, ZeeOSix, you are right. There is a problem here. The statistical analysis angle in this thread is a rather moot point.
Actually a statistical analysis is the very means for determining whether a problem exists and, if one does, its extent.
Quote:
I contend the design flaw is in fact the "V" shaped geometry of the filter media, and its interaction with the bonded ends/plates.
Were that the case, Purolator would have exhibited this "problem" before, since the design has remained the same for several years. It has not.
Quote:
They experience pressure load with only the tear strength of the media (local to the bonded ends) to resist it, hence tearing ensues.
What you're saying, essentially, is that the media appears to have torn. It is also possible it was cut in assembly. Forensic engineering requires that we objectively and carefully describe what we find, take a look at every possible cause for the condition noted, and by various means eliminate possibilities.
Quote:
In short, the "V" configuration is the prerequisite for this failure mode.
Every pleated filter media involves a "V" configuration.
Quote:
In my casual observation, I'm seeing many more reports of torn media than untorn.
If we were examining every Purolator filter of every BITOG member, that would be significant. We're not.
Quote:
It could have happened with any filter type which BITOG users may be using, but it happened with this brand.
As one poster noted, over the years he has found various media flaws in at least one of every filter brand he has examined. That's been my experience as well.
Quote:
Finally, I'd say, these flaws may or may not lead to any serious consequences to end users, but it is certainly quite possible that nontrivial engine damage could result.
By what mechanism? Death by wet cellulose?
Quote:
Again, Id like to see BITOG start something more in line with scientific investigation of these failures.
One would rather hope that MANN+HUMMEL Purolator Filters LLC, a company with over 1,000 employees, 2,000 part numbers, 78 patents, over US$240 million in sales, which has been around since 1923 could do something in the way of a scientific investigation of these alleged defects.
Quote:
I dont expect Purolator to be forthcoming in the interest of the end user.
The injection of that paranoid note pretty much concludes your credibility with this reader.
In short, ZeeOSix, you are right. There is a problem here. The statistical analysis angle in this thread is a rather moot point.
Actually a statistical analysis is the very means for determining whether a problem exists and, if one does, its extent.
Quote:
I contend the design flaw is in fact the "V" shaped geometry of the filter media, and its interaction with the bonded ends/plates.
Were that the case, Purolator would have exhibited this "problem" before, since the design has remained the same for several years. It has not.
Quote:
They experience pressure load with only the tear strength of the media (local to the bonded ends) to resist it, hence tearing ensues.
What you're saying, essentially, is that the media appears to have torn. It is also possible it was cut in assembly. Forensic engineering requires that we objectively and carefully describe what we find, take a look at every possible cause for the condition noted, and by various means eliminate possibilities.
Quote:
In short, the "V" configuration is the prerequisite for this failure mode.
Every pleated filter media involves a "V" configuration.
Quote:
In my casual observation, I'm seeing many more reports of torn media than untorn.
If we were examining every Purolator filter of every BITOG member, that would be significant. We're not.
Quote:
It could have happened with any filter type which BITOG users may be using, but it happened with this brand.
As one poster noted, over the years he has found various media flaws in at least one of every filter brand he has examined. That's been my experience as well.
Quote:
Finally, I'd say, these flaws may or may not lead to any serious consequences to end users, but it is certainly quite possible that nontrivial engine damage could result.
By what mechanism? Death by wet cellulose?
Quote:
Again, Id like to see BITOG start something more in line with scientific investigation of these failures.
One would rather hope that MANN+HUMMEL Purolator Filters LLC, a company with over 1,000 employees, 2,000 part numbers, 78 patents, over US$240 million in sales, which has been around since 1923 could do something in the way of a scientific investigation of these alleged defects.
Quote:
I dont expect Purolator to be forthcoming in the interest of the end user.
The injection of that paranoid note pretty much concludes your credibility with this reader.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
In short, ZeeOSix, you are right. There is a problem here. The statistical analysis angle in this thread is a rather moot point.
Actually a statistical analysis is the very means for determining whether a problem exists and, if one does, its extent.
Quote:
I contend the design flaw is in fact the "V" shaped geometry of the filter media, and its interaction with the bonded ends/plates.
Were that the case, Purolator would have exhibited this "problem" before, since the design has remained the same for several years. It has not.
Quote:
They experience pressure load with only the tear strength of the media (local to the bonded ends) to resist it, hence tearing ensues.
What you're saying, essentially, is that the media appears to have torn. It is also possible it was cut in assembly. Forensic engineering requires that we objectively and carefully describe what we find, take a look at every possible cause for the condition noted, and by various means eliminate possibilities.
Quote:
In short, the "V" configuration is the prerequisite for this failure mode.
Every pleated filter media involves a "V" configuration.
Quote:
In my casual observation, I'm seeing many more reports of torn media than untorn.
If we were examining every Purolator filter of every BITOG member, that would be significant. We're not.
Quote:
It could have happened with any filter type which BITOG users may be using, but it happened with this brand.
As one poster noted, over the years he has found various media flaws in at least one of every filter brand he has examined. That's been my experience as well.
Quote:
Finally, I'd say, these flaws may or may not lead to any serious consequences to end users, but it is certainly quite possible that nontrivial engine damage could result.
By what mechanism? Death by wet cellulose?
Quote:
Again, Id like to see BITOG start something more in line with scientific investigation of these failures.
One would rather hope that MANN+HUMMEL Purolator Filters LLC, a company with over 1,000 employees, 2,000 part numbers, 78 patents, over US$240 million in sales, which has been around since 1923 could do something in the way of a scientific investigation of these alleged defects.
Quote:
I dont expect Purolator to be forthcoming in the interest of the end user.
The injection of that paranoid note pretty much concludes your credibility with this reader.
No worries. Just about every post of yours on this topic, including your apparent naivety and excuse making concerning Purolator, has precluded your credibility on this subject. And since you clearly prefer to deal in credibility, instead of facts and ideas, I'll happily ignore your posts. Should your comments contain value, theyll find their way to relevance eventually.
If this is in fact a common configuration in reliable, nonfailing filters, then I'll be wrong. I'd like to see evidence of that, since the filtration media I've had the chance to observe have always used a differing arrangement. Admittedly I dont have immense time and resources to conclusively determine anything here, except that a consistent failure mode is occurring, that is at the least heavily aided by a poor component configuration.
These are clear failures of at the least quality control, at the worst, design or production control. Purolator has already evidenced where its interests lie, and I have no expectation of recalls forthcoming.
To quickly address your points:
A problem clearly exists, and the findings in the BITOG community are hardly statistically insignificant. These are no "random" failures that people are imagining to be prevalent. They are in fact, becoming commonplace findings, both in this community and others. Actual failure analysis goes beyond statistics, but maybe you have trouble with that concept.
Apparently there is evidence of this type of failure going back years. It's hardly an easy flaw to observe, so lack of reporting or "exhibition" is hardly conclusive, as your own arguments would reinforce.
It is true that a proper conclusion is hard to come to without a full "random" analysis of products, of design configurations, production control data, with performance tests, etc. Ideally the suspect characteristic would be properly tested, but the average user hardly has those resources. The combined resources of BITOG could however provide useful information and conclusions. A simple sampling of Purolator users here on BITOG would be quite meaningful. I guess youre not interested in being helpful though.
You display your intellectual dishonesty pretty comfortably. The V configuration I refer to is clearly not the same throughout the filter media, and is clearly suspect for obvious engineering reasons which you seem to either ignore or not comprehend.
We can examine a lot of BITOG member filters.
You found flaws in various filter brands over the years? And they were identical to these current Purolator flaws? Irrelevant anecdotes, as I'm sure you understand.
Yes, one would hope companies cared for their customers' best interests, but one would be foolish to believe that's how it goes.
Death by cellulose? I admitted the consequences of these failures may be not be severe, but to suggest they are meaningless is to suggest the purpose of oil filtration, and this whole site, is meaningless.
It would just be nice if someone intelligent such as your self tried to actually help the community with more than "nothing to worry about" and "we can trust the company to tell us there's a problem." However, you hardly appear to have a dispassionate view of the matter. There is a consistent pattern of failure occurring. But, I suppose we shouldnt trust our lying eyes, and should just trust companies to look out for our best interests.
Feel free to have the last word.
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
In short, ZeeOSix, you are right. There is a problem here. The statistical analysis angle in this thread is a rather moot point.
Actually a statistical analysis is the very means for determining whether a problem exists and, if one does, its extent.
Quote:
I contend the design flaw is in fact the "V" shaped geometry of the filter media, and its interaction with the bonded ends/plates.
Were that the case, Purolator would have exhibited this "problem" before, since the design has remained the same for several years. It has not.
Quote:
They experience pressure load with only the tear strength of the media (local to the bonded ends) to resist it, hence tearing ensues.
What you're saying, essentially, is that the media appears to have torn. It is also possible it was cut in assembly. Forensic engineering requires that we objectively and carefully describe what we find, take a look at every possible cause for the condition noted, and by various means eliminate possibilities.
Quote:
In short, the "V" configuration is the prerequisite for this failure mode.
Every pleated filter media involves a "V" configuration.
Quote:
In my casual observation, I'm seeing many more reports of torn media than untorn.
If we were examining every Purolator filter of every BITOG member, that would be significant. We're not.
Quote:
It could have happened with any filter type which BITOG users may be using, but it happened with this brand.
As one poster noted, over the years he has found various media flaws in at least one of every filter brand he has examined. That's been my experience as well.
Quote:
Finally, I'd say, these flaws may or may not lead to any serious consequences to end users, but it is certainly quite possible that nontrivial engine damage could result.
By what mechanism? Death by wet cellulose?
Quote:
Again, Id like to see BITOG start something more in line with scientific investigation of these failures.
One would rather hope that MANN+HUMMEL Purolator Filters LLC, a company with over 1,000 employees, 2,000 part numbers, 78 patents, over US$240 million in sales, which has been around since 1923 could do something in the way of a scientific investigation of these alleged defects.
Quote:
I dont expect Purolator to be forthcoming in the interest of the end user.
The injection of that paranoid note pretty much concludes your credibility with this reader.
No worries. Just about every post of yours on this topic, including your apparent naivety and excuse making concerning Purolator, has precluded your credibility on this subject. And since you clearly prefer to deal in credibility, instead of facts and ideas, I'll happily ignore your posts. Should your comments contain value, theyll find their way to relevance eventually.
If this is in fact a common configuration in reliable, nonfailing filters, then I'll be wrong. I'd like to see evidence of that, since the filtration media I've had the chance to observe have always used a differing arrangement. Admittedly I dont have immense time and resources to conclusively determine anything here, except that a consistent failure mode is occurring, that is at the least heavily aided by a poor component configuration.
These are clear failures of at the least quality control, at the worst, design or production control. Purolator has already evidenced where its interests lie, and I have no expectation of recalls forthcoming.
To quickly address your points:
A problem clearly exists, and the findings in the BITOG community are hardly statistically insignificant. These are no "random" failures that people are imagining to be prevalent. They are in fact, becoming commonplace findings, both in this community and others. Actual failure analysis goes beyond statistics, but maybe you have trouble with that concept.
Apparently there is evidence of this type of failure going back years. It's hardly an easy flaw to observe, so lack of reporting or "exhibition" is hardly conclusive, as your own arguments would reinforce.
It is true that a proper conclusion is hard to come to without a full "random" analysis of products, of design configurations, production control data, with performance tests, etc. Ideally the suspect characteristic would be properly tested, but the average user hardly has those resources. The combined resources of BITOG could however provide useful information and conclusions. A simple sampling of Purolator users here on BITOG would be quite meaningful. I guess youre not interested in being helpful though.
You display your intellectual dishonesty pretty comfortably. The V configuration I refer to is clearly not the same throughout the filter media, and is clearly suspect for obvious engineering reasons which you seem to either ignore or not comprehend.
We can examine a lot of BITOG member filters.
You found flaws in various filter brands over the years? And they were identical to these current Purolator flaws? Irrelevant anecdotes, as I'm sure you understand.
Yes, one would hope companies cared for their customers' best interests, but one would be foolish to believe that's how it goes.
Death by cellulose? I admitted the consequences of these failures may be not be severe, but to suggest they are meaningless is to suggest the purpose of oil filtration, and this whole site, is meaningless.
It would just be nice if someone intelligent such as your self tried to actually help the community with more than "nothing to worry about" and "we can trust the company to tell us there's a problem." However, you hardly appear to have a dispassionate view of the matter. There is a consistent pattern of failure occurring. But, I suppose we shouldnt trust our lying eyes, and should just trust companies to look out for our best interests.
Feel free to have the last word.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Just about every post of yours on this topic, including your apparent naivety and excuse making concerning Purolator, has precluded your credibility on this subject.
It is spelled "naiveté". It is the state of being naive - having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication, often in a context where one neglects pragmatism.
There is nothing to make excuses about. All manufactured products are subject to defects. The pictured defects on these filters are minor. No one knows either the consequences or frequency of these defects. The manufacturer responded promptly.
The only problem seems to be some folks who want to make it into a conspiracy, who get exceptionally upset when it's pointed out they're being churlish, and who make wild accusations about the motives of the manufacturer and other posters without a scintilla of evidence.
Just about every post of yours on this topic, including your apparent naivety and excuse making concerning Purolator, has precluded your credibility on this subject.
It is spelled "naiveté". It is the state of being naive - having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication, often in a context where one neglects pragmatism.
There is nothing to make excuses about. All manufactured products are subject to defects. The pictured defects on these filters are minor. No one knows either the consequences or frequency of these defects. The manufacturer responded promptly.
The only problem seems to be some folks who want to make it into a conspiracy, who get exceptionally upset when it's pointed out they're being churlish, and who make wild accusations about the motives of the manufacturer and other posters without a scintilla of evidence.
Wilhelm, the product design is severely flawed, pure and simple. You can keep pretending it is a random flaw, but that is clearly not the case. Whether by intent or by a mistake in the production process that arranged the media as it is found (the wide "V"), it has clearly existed this way for years. That is bad news to a customer, and should be.
I woud be happy to support an American company. I have nothing against Purolator, I see no conspiracy, I dont even know what to expect of Purolator honestly. But to expect a company to "do the right thing" is just not realistic. Personally, best I can imagine they do is promptly remedy the issue. But I can't imagine they'll ever acknowledge it, which is what I'd love to see.
I honestly came in not looking for a [censored] contest, but did fear one. I simply wanted to identify the issue, since that didn't seem to be happening on supposedly the most appropriate place, BITOG. It was my first post, and I wanted to address the issues raised. I probably should have just stuck to pointing out the obvious problem I see.
PS: I know I said "last word" earlier. Just felt this was a worthwhile post.
I woud be happy to support an American company. I have nothing against Purolator, I see no conspiracy, I dont even know what to expect of Purolator honestly. But to expect a company to "do the right thing" is just not realistic. Personally, best I can imagine they do is promptly remedy the issue. But I can't imagine they'll ever acknowledge it, which is what I'd love to see.
I honestly came in not looking for a [censored] contest, but did fear one. I simply wanted to identify the issue, since that didn't seem to be happening on supposedly the most appropriate place, BITOG. It was my first post, and I wanted to address the issues raised. I probably should have just stuck to pointing out the obvious problem I see.
PS: I know I said "last word" earlier. Just felt this was a worthwhile post.
Last edited:
Wilhelm_D Spot the flaw...
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
There is nothing to make excuses about. All manufactured products are subject to defects. The pictured defects on these filters are minor. No one knows either the consequences or frequency of these defects. The manufacturer responded promptly.
Obviously the majority of Purolator users really don't think this issue is minor, and of course I agree. Many have sworn off using Purolators for quite some time until they know the issues been resolved. I really don't blame them.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
The only problem seems to be some folks who want to make it into a conspiracy, who get exceptionally upset when it's pointed out they're being churlish, and who make wild accusations about the motives of the manufacturer and other posters without a scintilla of evidence.
It's all part of the process because the majority of faithful Purolators users have lost trust in the product and think it's something that needs to be fixed, and may not perceive Purolator as doing enough at the moment. You'll never influence anyone to change their perspective or opinion on any of this. Your efforts to change anybody's mind are totally fruitless.
There is nothing to make excuses about. All manufactured products are subject to defects. The pictured defects on these filters are minor. No one knows either the consequences or frequency of these defects. The manufacturer responded promptly.
Obviously the majority of Purolator users really don't think this issue is minor, and of course I agree. Many have sworn off using Purolators for quite some time until they know the issues been resolved. I really don't blame them.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
The only problem seems to be some folks who want to make it into a conspiracy, who get exceptionally upset when it's pointed out they're being churlish, and who make wild accusations about the motives of the manufacturer and other posters without a scintilla of evidence.
It's all part of the process because the majority of faithful Purolators users have lost trust in the product and think it's something that needs to be fixed, and may not perceive Purolator as doing enough at the moment. You'll never influence anyone to change their perspective or opinion on any of this. Your efforts to change anybody's mind are totally fruitless.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2896943
This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen on this topic.
For the same filter you can see different pleat spacing nearest to the metal crimp.
Several posters chime in with their experience. One says that same filter has always shown good spacing and no problems while another says they've seen the problem more than once.
Thinking about manufacturing variability, the number of pleats will be identical but how flattened the media is before it is formed into a circle will affect the positioning of the pleats on the end caps when they are glued. Therefore the amount of space and how much stress there is on the pleat nearest the crimp is variable. If too much force is applied to fold the media into pleats, the media won't spring back much and the pleats will be too close together.
In their response to the poster of the above thread, Purolator said everything on the filter was in spec. They made a huge list and point of that.
But they did not mention any spec about pleat spacing. Why not?
I think pleat spacing is quite variable and they don't have a good way of consistently controlling it. The process is automated and might need some work or new equipment to make it right. They probably have figured out already that they have gotten this working as best as they can without spending more on expensive solutions, that the tear won't always happen and even when it does it won't cause a problem and the vast majority of users won't notice it.
Again, it is telling that out of all the checking against standards that they communicated, they communicated nothing about pleat spacing.
This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen on this topic.
For the same filter you can see different pleat spacing nearest to the metal crimp.
Several posters chime in with their experience. One says that same filter has always shown good spacing and no problems while another says they've seen the problem more than once.
Thinking about manufacturing variability, the number of pleats will be identical but how flattened the media is before it is formed into a circle will affect the positioning of the pleats on the end caps when they are glued. Therefore the amount of space and how much stress there is on the pleat nearest the crimp is variable. If too much force is applied to fold the media into pleats, the media won't spring back much and the pleats will be too close together.
In their response to the poster of the above thread, Purolator said everything on the filter was in spec. They made a huge list and point of that.
But they did not mention any spec about pleat spacing. Why not?
I think pleat spacing is quite variable and they don't have a good way of consistently controlling it. The process is automated and might need some work or new equipment to make it right. They probably have figured out already that they have gotten this working as best as they can without spending more on expensive solutions, that the tear won't always happen and even when it does it won't cause a problem and the vast majority of users won't notice it.
Again, it is telling that out of all the checking against standards that they communicated, they communicated nothing about pleat spacing.
^
Insightful post. I think you're on to it.
Definitely seems that they are not properly controlling pleat configuration during final assembly. Obviously, they should be, and IMO, should know better. Anyhow, looking like the most plausible explanation at this point.
Insightful post. I think you're on to it.
Definitely seems that they are not properly controlling pleat configuration during final assembly. Obviously, they should be, and IMO, should know better. Anyhow, looking like the most plausible explanation at this point.
And don't forget, if they admit to the problem, its potentially a huge recall both in work to figure out what and how to recall as well as cost and future reputation.
They've also advised us to buy newer stock. So perhaps they've fixed the problem and don't want us to use and cut open older stock and keep advertising the problem.
Think about the messages they've given us:
Only seen one of these
Can't replicate in internal testing
Everything checks out quality wise
Buy the latest stock to get "improvements"
We might try a field exchange program
And then note how everyone gets the same email from a "new" quality manager.
They've also advised us to buy newer stock. So perhaps they've fixed the problem and don't want us to use and cut open older stock and keep advertising the problem.
Think about the messages they've given us:
Only seen one of these
Can't replicate in internal testing
Everything checks out quality wise
Buy the latest stock to get "improvements"
We might try a field exchange program
And then note how everyone gets the same email from a "new" quality manager.
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=21...nt=photo%2c.jpg
A sketch to illustrate the problem, as I see it. When there is a large void on the low pressure side (the "bad" condition), the media will be prone to collapse from oil pressure. Normal pleating ("good" case) results in all pleats being mutually supported against deformation from oil pressure.
A sketch to illustrate the problem, as I see it. When there is a large void on the low pressure side (the "bad" condition), the media will be prone to collapse from oil pressure. Normal pleating ("good" case) results in all pleats being mutually supported against deformation from oil pressure.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
And don't forget, if they admit to the problem, its potentially a huge recall both in work to figure out what and how to recall as well as cost and future reputation.
They've also advised us to buy newer stock. So perhaps they've fixed the problem and don't want us to use and cut open older stock and keep advertising the problem.
What concerns me is the documented cases around here, of Purolator being notified 2-3 years ago to these failures, and here we are years later finding the same problems.
And don't forget, if they admit to the problem, its potentially a huge recall both in work to figure out what and how to recall as well as cost and future reputation.
They've also advised us to buy newer stock. So perhaps they've fixed the problem and don't want us to use and cut open older stock and keep advertising the problem.
What concerns me is the documented cases around here, of Purolator being notified 2-3 years ago to these failures, and here we are years later finding the same problems.
Yep that's the problem. I'm convinced they understand it too. They can't have checked everything for quality and not noticed pleat spacing / gap / weakness.
They'll only fix it if they feel the public will know about it so we need to kick up a stink!
I am sure with a little effort we could spread the news around automotive forums.
They'll only fix it if they feel the public will know about it so we need to kick up a stink!
I am sure with a little effort we could spread the news around automotive forums.
- Status
