PL14670 and PSL22500 (Pics!)

[jk_636]

I still maintain the position that the media is just fine, and that the majority of failures occur because of prolonged service intervals that the filters were
Never designed to handle. "My pureone failed at 10k mile interval". Then don't use it 10k and it will be fine. People who want to run extended oci need to use the right filter for the job (I.E. Puro synthetic)

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I think Puro make their media too flexible or something now. Some new genius at their engineering probably decided he knew better than the way it was done before.
What I don't get is how the media tears when the oil has to pass through the small holes in the center tube, so the pleats are supported almost everywhere behind them.


Actually, the media in Purolators that tear is somewhat brittle. Add that to having wide spaced pleats and you get too much side force on the pleat surface with tries to flatten the pleat and then causes the media to tear at the ends where it is glued solid to the end caps. The center tube isn't preventing the pleats from getting too much side force; that can only be prevented by not having large pleat spacing and brittle, weak media.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
I still maintain the position that the media is just fine, and that the majority of failures occur because of prolonged service intervals that the filters were
Never designed to handle. "My pureone failed at 10k mile interval". Then don't use it 10k and it will be fine. People who want to run extended oci need to use the right filter for the job (I.E. Puro synthetic)


If that was true, we would have seen torn Purolators reported in this forum over the last 10 years, not over a 6 month period from Feb-Jun 2014. And according to Purolator themselves, their filters are rated to go the OCI distance that the vehicle manufacturer recommends in their service manual, and today most are well beyond a 3K~5K OCI/FCI. If Purolator is designing their filters to only do a 3K OCI, then they better step up and get with the modern day program.

 

[jk_636]

Quote:

If Purolator is designing their filters to only do a 3K OCI, then they better step up and get with the modern day program.

Enter the Purolator Synthetic

It really is all up to speculation still. Maybe one day we will find out definitively. Purolator will respond the day after all BITOG members stop fighting about it, and have moved onto some other topic.

 

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I think Puro make their media too flexible or something now. Some new genius at their engineering probably decided he knew better than the way it was done before.
What I don't get is how the media tears when the oil has to pass through the small holes in the center tube, so the pleats are supported almost everywhere behind them.


Actually, the media in Purolators that tear is somewhat brittle. Add that to having wide spaced pleats and you get too much side force on the pleat surface with tries to flatten the pleat and then causes the media to tear at the ends where it is glued solid to the end caps. The center tube isn't preventing the pleats from getting too much side force; that can only be prevented by not having large pleat spacing and brittle, weak media.


^This. Same reason for the ecore failures from a couple of years ago. Wide pleat spacing compromises the filter. Add a speculated weaker/brittle media and you have tears. Not rocket science. It can happen in as little as 3k miles.

These filters look good. I wish Puro would solve the wavy media syndrome and learn to add a few more pleats at the seam. That would restore my confidence. With minor changes they are the perfect filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Quote:

If Purolator is designing their filters to only do a 3K OCI, then they better step up and get with the modern day program.

Enter the Purolator Synthetic

It really is all up to speculation still. Maybe one day we will find out definitively. Purolator will respond the day after all BITOG members stop fighting about it, and have moved onto some other topic.

Not speculation. It's clear that the Purolator statement indicates their filters are good for the scheduled maintenance specified by the vehicle manufacturer.

From Purolator's website:
"Replace oil filters when you change your oil every 3 months or 3,000 miles, or as recommended by your vehicle manufacturer."

http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/document/Documents/PuroLimitedWarranty.pdf

"This limited warranty is effective for the number of miles and driving severity published in the owner's vehicle manual as the recommended service interval for filter replacements (“Warranty Period”)."

 

[jk_636]

Zeeosix you crack me up. Make a mountain out of a mole hill

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
I still maintain the position that the media is just fine, and that the majority of failures occur because of prolonged service intervals that the filters were
Never designed to handle. "My pureone failed at 10k mile interval". Then don't use it 10k and it will be fine. People who want to run extended oci need to use the right filter for the job (I.E. Puro synthetic)


Mine failed at 3K and 3.7K... hardly extended oil change intervals. Nor was it used on a "extreme" service vehicle ('99 Outback) Heck, it was back-to-back filter failures.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3287456/ANOTHER_PureOne_Filter_Tear

I literally had mole-sized holes in my mountain mule's oil filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Zeeosix you crack me up. Make a mountain out of a mole hill


Just speaking the facts and what Purolator say themselves on how long they say to use and warranty their filters for.

If you think Purolators are only good for 3K miles and that will save them from tearing, then best go stock up on a bunch.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I still maintain the position that the media is just fine, and that the majority of failures occur because of prolonged service intervals that the filters were
Never designed to handle. "My pureone failed at 10k mile interval". Then don't use it 10k and it will be fine. People who want to run extended oci need to use the right filter for the job (I.E. Puro synthetic)


Mine failed at 3K and 3.7K... hardly extended oil change intervals. Nor was it used on a "extreme" service vehicle ('99 Outback) Heck, it was back-to-back filter failures.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3287456/ANOTHER_PureOne_Filter_Tear

I literally had mole-sized holes in my mountain mule's oil filter.


Majority (meaning not all) of the failures. That is interesting that it failed at such a short interval. there are a lot of other variables that could lead to failure, but that would be off topic for this thread. Perhaps another discussion for another time.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ It's all been discussed multiple times over the last 8 months. Most people who were involved or read all the discussion are on the same page about the media failure issue.

 

[jk_636]

this thread is about the filters that didn't fail. You Framboys stop

 

[ZeeOSix]

There are plenty of guys here who gave up on Purolators and moved on to other brands like Fram, WIX, NAPA Gold, Mobil 1, etc, etc. Anything but something that might tear on them ... easy to grasp. Although, as I mentioned before, I'm using TWO PureOnes right now, so guess that makes me someone "living on the edge"! LOL

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
this thread is about the filters that didn't fail. You Framboys stop


Actually, you opened the can of worms (and once you open it, you can't close it)... not by opening the old-stock filter but by these statements:

Originally Posted By: jk_636
I still maintain the position that the media is just fine, and that the majority of failures occur because of prolonged service intervals that the filters were
Never designed to handle. "My pureone failed at 10k mile interval". Then don't use it 10k and it will be fine. People who want to run extended oci need to use the right filter for the job (I.E. Puro synthetic)


Originally Posted By: jk_636
But having said that, people who blow things out of proportion are "haters." It gets old when everytime a purolator thread pops up on BITOG there are throngs of people (typically FRAMboys

) who are instantly looking to condemn Purolator products


If you really want to push things, before last year I was a "Puroboy". I might have been able to excuse one bad filter... but getting two bad filters in a row while a bunch of other people are cutting open bad filter.... sigh. A lunacy would have been gettting a third filter and expecting a different result (aka a good filter). Well, now I am on WIX for the moment and not looking back. I don't really care about the "name" rather where it is made and the quality of the product.

You filters did not fail because they were old stock. If it was new stock, it would have been more interesting. It is kinda like posting a status report of the Titanic on April 13th (aka the day before it sank) and claiming success.

 

[jk_636]

Futuredoc make sure you keep this in mind as myself and others continue to post pictures of Purolators that DIDNT fail and are NEW stock.

I didnt start anything. I posted pictures of good filters that didnt fail and gave an opinion. This isnt some wide spread problem, engine destroying problem. How many failures is the list up to? Less than a couple hundred? Over a couple years? If a manufacturer makes 1,000,000,000 filters a year that adds up to less than a fraction of a percent. Making a big to do over nothing. Dont like the brand? Dont use them, but dont make every thread about those that didnt fail into a "why purolator is bad" argument.

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
... People who want to run extended oci need to use the right filter for the job (I.E. Puro synthetic)


This has been my thinking also, and I have read other posts in the past commenting on this as well.

What would be the need for the Purolator Synthetic filter that is rated for 10,000 miles if one can use the P1 or the Classic for 10,000 miles or greater just because the owner's manual says that the oil change doesn't have to be done sooner than that? Purolator developed the Synthetic filter for a reason. I know that if you read information on Purolator's website (see below), you can interpret it to mean that you can use the filter for whatever length of time/number of miles the owner's manual says you can do for an OCI, BUT I don't think it is smart to use an entry level, non-synthetic oil filter like the Classic for such a long time/so many miles. At some point, common sense needs to come into play.

[The following info was found on the Purolator website underneath "Resources" and "FAQ's" ...
"Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How often should I change my oil filter?
A: The mileage at which to change oil and filters really depends on factors like the driving habits, mileage on the vehicle, and the manufacturer’s recommendation for changing your engine oil and filters. Purolator recommends you change your oil and oil filter every 3,000 miles or as specified by your vehicle’s manufacturer."]

 

[Tony10s]

By the way, thanks for posting your oil filter pics. Your effort is appreciated.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Futuredoc make sure you keep this in mind as myself and others continue to post pictures of Purolators that DIDNT fail and are NEW stock.

I didnt start anything. I posted pictures of good filters that didnt fail and gave an opinion. This isnt some wide spread problem, engine destroying problem. How many failures is the list up to? Less than a couple hundred? Over a couple years? If a manufacturer makes 1,000,000,000 filters a year that adds up to less than a fraction of a percent. Making a big to do over nothing. Dont like the brand? Dont use them, but dont make every thread about those that didnt fail into a "why purolator is bad" argument.


But your pictures were old stock. Heck, my images of my filters posted last year were newer filters than your filters.

Don't be dismissive about those who post failed filter... they are not going to be "Framboys" because why would they use Purolator? All failures were by Purolator users, many of us regular users.

We can talk about research and statistics if you want. Considering that the population of people who cut open filters is amazingly small and of those people, BITOG members are a smaller subset of that, the likelihood of a bad filter should have been almost non-existant... but then again, from about mid-13 on, many opened BITOG purolators cut open were failures. Dozens in a short timespan. (Go look at the logs of failures posted here). If the 1% of 1% of the population that changes their oil, cuts open the filter, and then posts on BITOG start to notice a spike of failed filters, there is a major issue. Not everyone who eats at a restaurant reports food poisoning but if a hospital notices a string of cases with common variable (a specific restaurant) they you can bet the house that there is something likely happening there to cause issues.

Like I said, I used to be a Purolator loyalist. However, by at least March of 2013, something happened where Purolator was putting out substandard filters. Not only that, but when I reached out to Purolator, I got the cold shoulder.

If you want a reason why I might dislike Purolator, it is not because of the filter, rather when a loyal customer reached out about receiving a bad product, I got the "go pound sand" response.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Futuredoc make sure you keep this in mind as myself and others continue to post pictures of Purolators that DIDNT fail and are NEW stock.

But your pictures were old stock. Heck, my images of my filters posted last year were newer filters than your filters.


Exactly ... I don't consider anything made before about Aug 2014 "new stock". The whole tearing issue surfaced and peaked around Mar thru July 2014, so for Purolator to analyze and fix a problem would have taken some time. IMO changes in production by Purolator wouldn't happen right away and that's why I say production in Aug 2014 and beyond would most likely have changes made to fix the problem, IF they actually addressed the problem.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Futuredoc make sure you keep this in mind as myself and others continue to post pictures of Purolators that DIDNT fail and are NEW stock.

I didnt start anything. I posted pictures of good filters that didnt fail and gave an opinion. This isnt some wide spread problem, engine destroying problem. How many failures is the list up to? Less than a couple hundred? Over a couple years? If a manufacturer makes 1,000,000,000 filters a year that adds up to less than a fraction of a percent. Making a big to do over nothing. Dont like the brand? Dont use them, but dont make every thread about those that didnt fail into a "why purolator is bad" argument.


Keep in mind that before the Purolator tearing problem surfaced here there were NONE ever reported with media tears. You make it sound like members of an oil filter board discovering dozens of tears in a few months is something "normal" and "expected".