Received an email from Purolator

[Sam2000]

I agree that the response leaves a lot to be desired.

If someone at Purolator was truly concerned, they would open an account and be responding to every poster publicly and privately to get data and the filter back.

There's no place else that is a one stop shop for getting filters with torn media back.

 

[FetchFar]

There are really two courses of action Purolator can take: Find out what percentage are tearing, and then do forensics on more they find tearing. Funny, its usually engineers like me that get accused of overthinking a task, but in this case, simply must get 100 from random walks of life out there to see how big the problem is.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
There's no place else that is a one stop shop for getting filters with torn media back.


Probably 100 purolator classic filters get installed every day just in the Denver CO area alone. PepBoys, Walmart, Jiffylube, grease monkey, etc., plus add in some cars from their employee parking lot and you've got 100. And for those who don't think 100 will do it just don't understand sampling.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
There's no place else that is a one stop shop for getting filters with torn media back.


Probably 100 purolator classic filters get installed every day just in the Denver CO area alone. PepBoys, Walmart, Jiffylube, grease monkey, etc., plus add in some cars from their employee parking lot and you've got 100. And for those who don't think 100 will do it just don't understand sampling.


I think they all need to be Purolator brand Classic and PureOnes, exclude any "made by Purolator" off brand filter clones.

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Also, I just want to point out here that the "stockedpiled batches" is a bit flimsy.

Just for the sake of getting some facts into the "Crucify Purolator" threads, they actually do make filters in batches.

They set up for filters of a specific size, assemble a supply of media, springs, and so on, and then run x number of a specific part number.

If they have another part number that shares everything but uses a different bypass spring, they'll assemble those and some labels and run them next.

I am not familiar with the specifics of Purolator's operation, but the flow will be batches, then factory inventory, then distributor and large retailer inventory, and then wholesale and retail local outlets.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D

Just for the sake of getting some facts into the "Crucify Purolator" threads ...


Do you own some Purolator stock or something?

 

[Sam2000]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
There's no place else that is a one stop shop for getting filters with torn media back.


Probably 100 purolator classic filters get installed every day just in the Denver CO area alone. PepBoys, Walmart, Jiffylube, grease monkey, etc., plus add in some cars from their employee parking lot and you've got 100. And for those who don't think 100 will do it just don't understand sampling.


I was referring to them collecting data and filters that are actually torn in the first place.

From this forum, they are guaranteed a good number of faulty filters.

They could follow your idea, find or claim there were no issues, and then proclaim there is no problem.

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Do you own some Purolator stock or something?

Do you work for Fram?

 

[dlundblad]

I too thought it was a bit of a generic reply, but as someone said, they didn't have to reply at all.

The using old stock thing is what cracked me up. When I bought my Bosch Premium filter last February, it was already 11 months old being made in 3/13. I'm sure there are other old faulty filters still on store shelves and warehouses so finding a new Purolator is probably not as easy as he said.

If a person was able to find one made within the last 2 months or so, it would be interesting to run it and see how well it held up.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Nope, totally wrong. Statistical laws of random sampling and uncertainty calculations will get you really close to the truth over all usages out there. You could put rules on it like only those over 3000 miles, but you don't even need to do that.


Here is the issue, you are not truly taking random samples nor are we looking for a general characteristic without other compounding metrics. Going to a "fleet" is not random nor would it accurately inform as it will skew towards certain vehicles. What we are looking for is a failure under very specific conditions but with a broad vehicle application. We will be looking for certifiable filters between 2,500-5,000 miles operated under certain conditions and across filter models. So randomly sampling without knowing the exact history and condition of the vehicle (which at a quick-lube place would be horrific), then the sample falls apart. Did the person do two OCI on that filter? Is the ODO record accurate, etc. It makes "random sampling" very cost ineffective. It is like cold-calling a neighborhood about food-poising to get a "sample" rather than just following up with those admitted to the ER or doctors office with the same symptoms.

Random sampling allows for generalization of a population... but we are not really needing to generalize from a sample. We are in search of a documented product failure and can infer based on the many cases despite a small number (only a limited number of people go to the ER for food poisoning (and that is not random sampling) but we can track it and trace it) because the likelihood of a non-issue would not lead to the number of post and threads about the filter's failure.

Says the poster that attempts to make the claim that the tears seen on this board are the results of, or close enough to a random sample to make a statistically valid and reliable conclusion regarding actual tear numbers. Laughable. Can't have it both ways and the Bitog anecdotes can never be classified as a random sample, let alone a large enough sample size.

Sampling a large fleet as suggested would be a much 'closer to' a random sample than the Bitog anecdotes you so passionately try to argue as being random 'enough'. Your now obvious bias against Purolator in this matter make your statements regarding random sampling in the matter highly suspect. It's true that one can make inferences on tear numbers from the Bitog anecdotes, but that is all. Inferences though are not conclusive to actual numbers.

As for the topic, Purolator took the time to respond and are aware of the issue and state they are attempting to make changes to address the issue(s). Clearly as shown in this thread for some that is not and will not be enough. Suggestion to those folks would be simply, change brands and move on.

 

[smithph]

So the rest of the story is.... do not buy any Purolator filter made prior to yesterday 4/22/2014? Do they use the same date code on all the filters they make including Bosch, Mann etc.?

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
As for the topic, Purolator took the time to respond and are aware of the issue and state they are attempting to make changes to address the issue(s). Clearly as shown in this thread for some that is not and will not be enough. Suggestion to those folks would be simply, change brands and move on.

Amen.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: smithph
So the rest of the story is.... do not buy any Purolator filter made prior to yesterday 4/22/2014? Do they use the same date code on all the filters they make including Bosch, Mann etc.?


And as I said, it may be a bit hard finding a "brand new" Purolator filter. Check the dates on the ones in stores and see how old they are. I wouldn't be surprised if they are at least a year or more.

 

[Sierra048]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Just curious... you think maybe the tears are happening after the filter is in use ?

They wouldn't be letting torn filters go out the factory door would they ?


I have never seen or heard of one Purolator filter that had tears in the media when it was brand new. But of course, not many people cut open brand new oil filters, so the sample group is even smaller there.


I cut open a new Puro classic and a new Pure One last month and posted on here (unfortunately I deleted the pictures from Photobucket not long afterward and they disappeared from my post here). Both looked to be in perfect condition. Not long after that, I posted a cut-open used PL20195 off my Jeep that had tears in it.

Funny, I was working in my garage yesterday listening to the radio and I heard a commercial for Purolator oil filters. Not that they don't advertise on a regular basis, it's just this is the first time I've heard one.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: sayjac

Says the poster that attempts to make the claim that the tears seen on this board are the results of, or close enough to a random sample to make a statistically valid and reliable conclusion regarding actual tear numbers. Laughable. Can't have it both ways and the Bitog anecdotes can never be classified as a random sample, let alone a large enough sample size.

Sampling a large fleet as suggested would be a much 'closer to' a random sample than the Bitog anecdotes you so passionately try to argue as being random 'enough'. Your now obvious bias against Purolator in this matter make your statements regarding random sampling in the matter highly suspect. It's true that one can make inferences on tear numbers from the Bitog anecdotes, but that is all. Inferences though are not conclusive to actual numbers.

As for the topic, Purolator took the time to respond and are aware of the issue and state they are attempting to make changes to address the issue(s). Clearly as shown in this thread for some that is not and will not be enough. Suggestion to those folks would be simply, change brands and move on.


I never thought I would be discussing statistical and research methods on a oil forum... oh well, here we go.

I never said that BITOG reporting would be a random sample. I have made it clear that we do not need a true random sample. Anyone with any background in applied statistical research or bio-stats would see the rational behind this.

We are dealing with reported problems and like my food poisoning example, we can compared reported cases to the expected number of cases of a given issue. The issue at hand is that the true number of failure is not going to be reported. Most folks do not cut open cans. Thus, when you see a string of reported failures (Say dozens over the course of a month) compared to maybe 1-3 over the course of the same time, THAT is the test you implement. All you need to do is test the number of reported failures against the number of expected failures in normal operations and that will be your valid statistical test.

To say that BITOG is not a valid data-source is kinda like saying that the people who bother going to the hospital is not valid for food poisoning. Some don't open cans, some people after eating rotten fish just chug a fifth a pepto and grunt it out. If you see a spike in the reported cases against the typical trend, then there is a issue at hand. You do not need to take a survey of the neighborhood. It is wasteful especially if the neighborhood is woefully ignorant of the issue.

If you "sample" a fleet, then all you can generalize about will be "for fleet use". A fleet vehicle does have different characteristics than a typical private automobile. It will skew towards models specific for that fleet. Now, if there is a problem, then that problem will show up but if there is no tearing, then... you lack the data. You can't conform a null.

FutureDoc, Ph.D. Former TA of Quantitative Analysis (applied statistics in a social science capacity)

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: sayjac

Says the poster that attempts to make the claim that the tears seen on this board are the results of, or close enough to a random sample to make a statistically valid and reliable conclusion regarding actual tear numbers. Laughable. Can't have it both ways and the Bitog anecdotes can never be classified as a random sample, let alone a large enough sample size.

Sampling a large fleet as suggested would be a much 'closer to' a random sample than the Bitog anecdotes you so passionately try to argue as being random 'enough'. Your now obvious bias against Purolator in this matter make your statements regarding random sampling in the matter highly suspect. It's true that one can make inferences on tear numbers from the Bitog anecdotes, but that is all. Inferences though are not conclusive to actual numbers.

As for the topic, Purolator took the time to respond and are aware of the issue and state they are attempting to make changes to address the issue(s). Clearly as shown in this thread for some that is not and will not be enough. Suggestion to those folks would be simply, change brands and move on.


I never thought I would be discussing statistical and research methods on a oil forum.....

Ironic considering it is you that just made statistical sampling the issue in your previous post. Bitog tears anecdotes being a both a valid and reliable indicator of the actual number of tears is the point being specifically addressed. Bottom line the Bitog anecdotes are not a random sample, therefore nor are they a valid or reliable indicator of the true number of tears in Purolator filters and perhaps more importantly versus other brands posted here. Much as your bias against Purolator shows with your repeated posts including the same pic(s), so would be the potential now for Purolator oil filters to be posted more often than others and thus "skewed" in that direction based on that bias. Not saying that's the case, but it can't be ruled out now either. No difference than possible "skew" example of fleet results, except that fleet results would be from a larger sample and clearly much more random sample than bitog tear anecdotes. So 'to me' the fleet use suggestion would yield a much more valid and reliable result of actual tear data, even if just from fleet use.

I've often heard that Ph.d stands for piled high and deep.

 

[smithph]

Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: smithph
So the rest of the story is.... do not buy any Purolator filter made prior to yesterday 4/22/2014? Do they use the same date code on all the filters they make including Bosch, Mann etc.?


And as I said, it may be a bit hard finding a "brand new" Purolator filter. Check the dates on the ones in stores and see how old they are. I wouldn't be surprised if they are at least a year or more.



The date code to look for would be f04F22e2 or 04=Month, F=2014, 22=Day

 

[FutureDoc]

I was a Purolator-only (save for the MR2) user before becoming a BITOG member... I am a fan of using NC made products when they work.


Mercy, some folks say "random sample" and do not even know what a random sample means. Ugg. Why would we need a full random sample? When we want to generalize about the population from a sample. We are not saying that Purolators all tear, but the higher than expected failure rates compared to other reported filters is cause for concern. When a factory pulls a sample and test it, they are testing to see if it meets X standard within a certain deviation and then applies it to generalize on the batch. So that 99.9% efficiency printed on the Purolator box is an example of them testing a random sample and generalizing to the population. Our methodological concern is not about generalizing on the whole. We are not trying to determine if 1%, 5%, or 20% of filters will fail... we are noting that if there is a failure then there is a problem. Basic reasoning should suggest, if it is a quality product, then the reported likelihood of a failure in any reporting environment (say a online forum) should be small. Quirks in manufacturing will cause a small percentage of products to be... off. However, when there is a rash of reported issues, once does not need a random sample because we are not generalizing on the population. We are saying that an uptick in failed filters is a manufacturing/design concern without any need to generalize on the population from a random sample. A random sample will not give you the qualitative "judgement" of the quality if an item as to its pass/fail. This is why a few dozen reported issues with a car can trigger a recall of hundreds-of-thousands. Again, fleet data will add information but it will not be the right information and then you can't generalize with it which would be the point of a random sample (as a fleet would be a cluster sample).

Ph.D. means you do not know how to pour pi.ss out of a boot... but then again you know not to pi.ss in your boots. While Ph.D. do not know everything... or much, the one thing we know is research design.

 

[bullwinkle]

Certain Puro varieties seem more prone to this than others-I've been cutting the ones I've changed on my families' vehicles & not seen one torn yet-I still think cold starts + thick oil + filters with wide pleats by the crimp are more prone than others. Has anyone seen a tear bad enough yet that media has made it out (like an Ecore blowout)? That's the scenario I'd be scared of.

 

[FetchFar]

Mr. Mack sent me another email. Very communicative. As before, I don't want this forum to pick apart his email to me, so I'm not posting.

However, I feel like he should just let me know how Purolator goes out and collects samples in the real world. Really, how difficult is it for a company like that to get 10 filters back per week to disassemble and look for problems?

He makes it sound like BITOG members are freaks with their numerous Purolator Classic media tears. In reality, there is really no way you can "abuse" an oil filter, you just put the thing on there and drive.