Purolator PL14670

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: Dyusik
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Very impressive a $7.00 oil filter went 3000 miles...

It could have gone longer. I regularly take them to 5k miles. (I dont do any OCI longer than 7k. I just dont believe in extended intervals.) I pulled this one and changed the oil because I had ran it pretty hard a couple times off road, and had some Mobil 1 that was burning a hole in my stash

Considering MANN is a puro, you don't have anything to worry about (given no tear's happen), cause I took one to 17k+ on a Bimmer once. I have a P1 on the jeep, and plan to take it 3-4yrs ( about 5k, dirty engine, massive blow by, and wheeler), and on my bike for 2yrs, (3-4k because of tranny+engine). People don't give enough credit to filters, given a clean engine and no defects, a filter should last 20k easily. Just put my old wix back in for another run one Lexus cause it looked like yours after 5k.


I dont know about running a filter that long, but in theory I agree with you. With a clean engine and ideal driving conditions a filter should hold up just fine.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636

See above filter.
-New production
-severe service
-no failure.


Granted, 10-16-2014 is "newer", but not as new as a few recent posted failures.

Is there a reason you chose the full synthetic Purolator - even though you don't believe is "extended OCIs"? My guess is because no reports of failed full synthetic Purolators so you don't want to risk a torn filter on your vehicles. Why not run a Classic or PureOne again?


I use Purolator Synthetics and Pureones. I go back and forth between the two, but up until recently I exclusively used Pureones. It even says so in my signature. I dont use classics. Not because Im worried about them failing, but because I like the higher efficiency rating of the other two. You dont have to have ridiculous OCIs to appreciate a good synthetic filter. I started using the Purolator Synthetic when I recently switched from Mobil 5000 to Mobil 1.

I actually replaced it with a Fram Ultra this go around. NOT BECAUSE IM WORRIED ABOUT PUROLATORS TEARING, but because I bought one when they had the rebate and I want to see how it stacks up against the Puro synthetic.

But rest assured, I will be returning to Pureones and Synthetics after this 5k mile OCI.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: robo339
Lol 3k miles what a torture test....


Yeah thats hilarious. Changing your oil after severe service off road. I dont know about you, but preventative maintenance always makes me laugh. I cant think of anything more amusing than stupid vehicle owners and their responsible maintenance practices...

 

[webfors]

You filter is missing a couple of pleats.

Otherwise, looks good. Thanks for posting!

 

[bullwinkle]

I'm confused as to why off road would be severe service (dirt ingestion?), I would think short trips in winter would be worse-filter looks good though. If there was just a way to determine (in advance) whether a Puro filter had a glued seam or crimped one...

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: webfors
You filter is missing a couple of pleats.

Otherwise, looks good. Thanks for posting!


Missing a couple of pleats? The gaps are from the pleats bending and/or becoming wavy, but they haven't gone anywhere. The pureone is 99% efficient at 20 microns. I believe that makes it the most efficient filter off the shelf. So I dont understand why you say there are missing pleats?

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
I'm confused as to why off road would be severe service (dirt ingestion?), I would think short trips in winter would be worse-filter looks good though. If there was just a way to determine (in advance) whether a Puro filter had a glued seam or crimped one...


Yes and yes. The vehicle was driven through a lot of bumper to bumper stop and go traffic (about 98% of the OCI) and when off road was operating in dirty and severely dusty environments. Truth be told I thought the oil would be in worse shape than it was. There was quite a bit of trapped particulates in the filter, but the oil wasnt as black as I expexcted.

As for the glued vs. crimped issue, Im not sure if there is a way to know if advance. Perhaps you can tell based on the manufacturing plant or filter model?

 

[KCJeep]

As far as I recall this particular part number has not has any reported problems. I pay attention cause it fits my Jeep. I don't use them though because for me they are rattle-lators terrible start up issues.

If you want to cherry pick the part numbers that haven't had problems and claim victory for all Purolators be my guest, you're not fooling anybody.

This filter looks great though. All Puro's used to look like that, which is why they were the darling of BITOG for years.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
As far as I recall this particular part number has not has any reported problems. I pay attention cause it fits my Jeep. I don't use them though because for me they are rattle-lators terrible start up issues.

If you want to cherry pick the part numbers that haven't had problems and claim victory for all Purolators be my guest, you're not fooling anybody.

This filter looks great though. All Puro's used to look like that, which is why they were the darling of BITOG for years.



The only start up noise I have ever experienced in this vehicle was from an OCOD. Once I removed it the noise dissapeared and never returned.

Where is this hostility coming from? Im not claiming a "victory" for all Purolator filters, I am merely advocating that they are still by and large safe to use. Which, based on everything I have seen and experienced has proved to be more than a valid statement.

I dont know why or where all these "torn" filters are coming from, but I havent ever had an issue, and I report all my experiences back here. The membership can decide what they want to do with it from there.

It seems to be the highest form of hypocrisy that someone who posts a torn filter is praised, while one who posts a functional filter is accused of being a loon...

 

[Stewie]

Cuz most of non torn media are low mileage or posted by you

 

[robo339]

Please explain this severe off road I'm curious......stewie not including all the hype at the beginning I thought it was something special but most filters will survive 3k miles easy

 

[KCJeep]

No hostility, although your pro Puro bias is a bit over the top IMO.

You like MMO though, so there we have something to agree on!

My Jeep is crazy picky on start up has nothing to do with Puro there are a host of filters it doesn't like, including the orange can or the fancy Wix/Napa Golds.

If a filter looks good, I say so (which I did post above also). If it doesn't I say so too...but the pattern is undeniable and it is definitely part number related. Happily the 14670 isn't one of them.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: Stewie
Cuz most of non torn media are low mileage or posted by you


You cant be serious?

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
No hostility, although your pro Puro bias is a bit over the top IMO.

You like MMO though, so there we have something to agree on!

My Jeep is crazy picky on start up has nothing to do with Puro there are a host of filters it doesn't like, including the orange can or the fancy Wix/Napa Golds.

If a filter looks good, I say so (which I did post above also). If it doesn't I say so too...but the pattern is undeniable and it is definitely part number related. Happily the 14670 isn't one of them.


I am obligated to point out the continued hypocrisy.

My filter bias is a bit over the top? Have you been keeping abreast of the current situation here? This site may as well be renamed "Fram is the only guy." On this website, if it isn't a Fram Ultra it isn't s**t, and those that disagree are all but run out of town on a rail or denounced as being insane or having a lack of common sense. Heck, they may as well be the unofficial sponsor of the website, as I was even suspended for, and I quote, "bashing Fram filters"! Ridiculous at best. But Im the one who is over the top eh? Quite comical.

But since you like MMO, you are ok in my book I suppose. It could be worse...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
My filter bias is a bit over the top? Have you been keeping abreast of the current situation here? This site may as well be renamed "Fram is the only guy." On this website, if it isn't a Fram Ultra it isn't s**t, and those that disagree are all but run out of town on a rail or denounced as being insane or having a lack of common sense.


A bit dramatic response I'd say. People here like plenty of other filters besides the Ultra (including myself), so I really don't know why you are so stuck on people talking about a filter that's obviously very good for a good price ... as some others are too. Getting miffed because people don't like the risk of using Purolators shouldn't bother you, but it really does - and it's especially easy to see the hatred you have for Fram and the Ultra in particular. This forum to here to discuss oil filters, and the talk will naturally gravitate to what filters are good and what are bad. Deal with it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jk_636

I dont know why or where all these "torn" filters are coming from, but I havent ever had an issue, and I report all my experiences back here. The membership can decide what they want to do with it from there.

Ummm, from all other members besides yourself - LoL.

You still don't seem to understand that your experience doesn't speak for other's experience, as can be seen with all the reports of torn filters. You are using a filter model (as was already pointed out) that doesn't seem to suffer from the problem, so keep that in mind when you tout that they are all OK because the ones you use are "OK".

 

[Sayjac]

Putting this back on topic, this P1 look fine. Granted ~3k mi is no torture test, but I've seen many similar fci range filters posted here recently from many differing brands, and many unknown mileage filters, that look similar/similar results with no derogatory follow up.

Now for the OT. When one posts an off topic comment followed by (j/k) and follows it with multiple OT negative posts then it's not j/k but beating the horse dead 'imo.'

It's also why with my PL14449 posted last Dec in this thread I made sure to keep it factual and to steer/keep it on topic. Reading this board regularly, it's the best way to handle it, for me at least. That way there's little or no opening for those with an 'other than' specific topic agenda. My .02

Thanks for the pics.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: jk_636


Looks like you, futuredoc and all the rest have no excuse for this one (or any of the others) eh?


Really? Why are you dragging me into this thread. Really a $#!+ move. I had nothing to do with your filter. In any case since you opened that door, let me show you my filers.

I think this is the 3,700-4,200 mile one.

This was the 3,010 mile one I think.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Very impressive a $7.00 oil filter went 3000 miles...

It could have gone longer.


So, push your filter another 10 miles and it could look like mine. The trick is that torn filters are kinda like blond/brunette people. Just because you happen do be a brunette does not dis-prove the existence of blonds. Heck, more untorn filters than torn filters could exist but considering that dozens upon dozens have been reported by a small subset of a population suggest that the problem is not minor, but rather staggering.

 

[FutureDoc]

Also, can you give me a brighter image and a better look at the "tearing" trouble-spots. With waves near the seam (which the non-metal seems are less of a problem), I would like that closer look to see if there is media stress.

Addition
Ok, lets play spot the "cheap filter" with nearly 9,000 miles...

 

[goodtimes]

1. You forged or photo shopped your pictures.
2. Try as I may, I can't see any tears in those pictures.
3. You tore it while opening it.
4. It's only one bad one out of millions of good ones.
5. Has the water been checked in Texas lately, something is going on.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636
My filter bias is a bit over the top? Have you been keeping abreast of the current situation here? This site may as well be renamed "Fram is the only guy." On this website, if it isn't a Fram Ultra it isn't s**t, and those that disagree are all but run out of town on a rail or denounced as being insane or having a lack of common sense.


A bit dramatic response I'd say. People here like plenty of other filters besides the Ultra (including myself), so I really don't know why you are so stuck on people talking about a filter that's obviously very good for a good price ... as some others are too. Getting miffed because people don't like the risk of using Purolators shouldn't bother you, but it really does - and it's especially easy to see the hatred you have for Fram and the Ultra in particular. This forum to here to discuss oil filters, and the talk will naturally gravitate to what filters are good and what are bad. Deal with it.

Dont confuse drama with honesty. And Im not getting "miffed" over anything.I am not a fan of Fram products, but that is just my opinion and I dont hold anything against those who use them.

This is rapidly becoming Fram is the only guy, much in part because "the group" jumps on people that disagree with the "order." I have given plenty of examples of this and do not need to explain it any further or continue to beat that horse to death. Just keep generating threads about the ultra and dismissing anyone who uses Purolator products as insane and all will go according to plan...

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636

I dont know why or where all these "torn" filters are coming from, but I havent ever had an issue, and I report all my experiences back here. The membership can decide what they want to do with it from there.

Ummm, from all other members besides yourself - LoL.

You still don't seem to understand that your experience doesn't speak for other's experience, as can be seen with all the reports of torn filters. You are using a filter model (as was already pointed out) that doesn't seem to suffer from the problem, so keep that in mind when you tout that they are all OK because the ones you use are "OK".


When I say that I dont understand where they are coming from, it means I dont know why they occasionally tear for certain people. You dont seem to follow the logic. I use them constantly, on 5 different vehicles. If they were going to fail, it should have happened already. But they havent.

I thought that all Purolators tore because of faulty media? Now it is a model based problem? Sounds a lot like excuses continue to be made to justify a problem...

But that model excuse is nonsense also. My 14670 might not be on that list but my 22500 and others for the cars definetely are. And those have never torn either. Even in extended intervals. So which is it? Bad media or bad model? I have yet to see either.



Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: jk_636


Looks like you, futuredoc and all the rest have no excuse for this one (or any of the others) eh?


Really? Why are you dragging me into this thread. Really a $#!+ move. I had nothing to do with your filter. In any case since you opened that door, let me show you my filers.

I think this is the 3,700-4,200 mile one.

This was the 3,010 mile one I think.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Very impressive a $7.00 oil filter went 3000 miles...

It could have gone longer.


So, push your filter another 10 miles and it could look like mine. The trick is that torn filters are kinda like blond/brunette people. Just because you happen do be a brunette does not dis-prove the existence of blonds. Heck, more untorn filters than torn filters could exist but considering that dozens upon dozens have been reported by a small subset of a population suggest that the problem is not minor, but rather staggering.


Calm down Futerdoc. We dont need a repeat of all your old Purolator photos. You got brought up because you consistently make the "It isnt new production so it doesn't count" excuse when one of my filters shows up tear free. This one is new production, thus now that argument has been debunked!

Is it just me, or does it just really seem that some in here are having a really hard time coping with the fact that this filter is AOK?

It is just a filter. Maybe in the future there will be another reported "tear" that you can jump all over!

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
1. You forged or photo shopped your pictures.
2. Try as I may, I can't see any tears in those pictures.
3. You tore it while opening it.
4. It's only one bad one out of millions of good ones.
5. Has the water been checked in Texas lately, something is going on.


1. I assure you I have done neither.
2. Not applicable to me, I am a professional filter cutter.
3. See number 2.
4. This is true.
5. The water in Texas is terrible, thats why I dont drink it.