Do all of the PureOne filters have the bypass valve at the end of the filter instead of behind the drainback valve? Just wondering because I was looking at the filter I bought, and noticed that my other filters have the valve at the front. Does that cause problems?
PureOne Observations
- Thread starter SuperBusa
- Start date
- Status
Can you ask which four PNs?
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
I would reinterate what Patfan quotes from Purolator; that the 40 micron rating is for CARTRIDGE filters, and (sadly) just 4 of their spin ons! For you Amsoil lovers, if I wanted to do long OCIs, I would also go with Amsoil, but for Purolators PureONE's better filtering effiencies and less than half the price, I have to stick with the ugly yellow can. For these two reasons, I'll put up with no plastic wrap.
SuperBusa - You already have the answer; read earlier in this thread. Why this also exists in the four spin ons, however, I have no clue.
Guess I don't quite follow you. I know it's the cartridge filters, and 4 spin-on filters from Purolator's response ... but I'm puzzled why 4 out of 100s of PureONE spin-on filters would have the 99.9% @ 40u instead of 20u.
I'm wondering if the cartridge filters are not using the "Micronic" filter media that is in the PureONEs. Maybe the 4 orphan spin-ons are using some other kind of filter media than the other PureONEs?
I emailed Purolator and asked them why only 4 out of 100s of the PurONEs would have a different efficiency. Will relay their response if they give me some info.
Maybe flow requirements? Them VTEC Hondas have hung rev rages.
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
I would reinterate what Patfan quotes from Purolator; that the 40 micron rating is for CARTRIDGE filters, and (sadly) just 4 of their spin ons! For you Amsoil lovers, if I wanted to do long OCIs, I would also go with Amsoil, but for Purolators PureONE's better filtering effiencies and less than half the price, I have to stick with the ugly yellow can. For these two reasons, I'll put up with no plastic wrap.
SuperBusa - You already have the answer; read earlier in this thread. Why this also exists in the four spin ons, however, I have no clue.
Guess I don't quite follow you. I know it's the cartridge filters, and 4 spin-on filters from Purolator's response ... but I'm puzzled why 4 out of 100s of PureONE spin-on filters would have the 99.9% @ 40u instead of 20u.
I'm wondering if the cartridge filters are not using the "Micronic" filter media that is in the PureONEs. Maybe the 4 orphan spin-ons are using some other kind of filter media than the other PureONEs?
I emailed Purolator and asked them why only 4 out of 100s of the PurONEs would have a different efficiency. Will relay their response if they give me some info.
Maybe flow requirements? Them VTEC Hondas have hung rev rages.
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Can you ask which four PNs?
One of the four spin-on filters is p/n PL14610.
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Maybe flow requirements? Them VTEC Hondas have hung rev rages.
Could be. No response back from Purolator Tech Dept yet, but will share info if they respond.
Can you ask which four PNs?
One of the four spin-on filters is p/n PL14610.
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Maybe flow requirements? Them VTEC Hondas have hung rev rages.
Could be. No response back from Purolator Tech Dept yet, but will share info if they respond.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Can you ask which four PNs?
One of the four spin-on filters is p/n PL14610.
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Maybe flow requirements? Them VTEC Hondas have hung rev rages.
Could be. No response back from Purolator Tech Dept yet, but will share info if they respond.
wth, I just looked at my 14610 and sure enough it says 40micros where my chrylser (not sure what the purolator number is) says 20micron. That is [censored], I would not have bought it
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Can you ask which four PNs?
One of the four spin-on filters is p/n PL14610.
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Maybe flow requirements? Them VTEC Hondas have hung rev rages.
Could be. No response back from Purolator Tech Dept yet, but will share info if they respond.
wth, I just looked at my 14610 and sure enough it says 40micros where my chrylser (not sure what the purolator number is) says 20micron. That is [censored], I would not have bought it
Originally Posted By: Jdblya
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Can you ask which four PNs?
One of the four spin-on filters is p/n PL14610.
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Maybe flow requirements? Them VTEC Hondas have hung rev rages.
Could be. No response back from Purolator Tech Dept yet, but will share info if they respond.
wth, I just looked at my 14610 and sure enough it says 40micros where my chrylser (not sure what the purolator number is) says 20micron. That is [censored], I would not have bought it
I think it's because Honda's don't wear to the point of needing 20um filtering
.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Can you ask which four PNs?
One of the four spin-on filters is p/n PL14610.
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Maybe flow requirements? Them VTEC Hondas have hung rev rages.
Could be. No response back from Purolator Tech Dept yet, but will share info if they respond.
wth, I just looked at my 14610 and sure enough it says 40micros where my chrylser (not sure what the purolator number is) says 20micron. That is [censored], I would not have bought it
I think it's because Honda's don't wear to the point of needing 20um filtering
.Not a clue; but when/if you find out, please let us all know!
Thanks for the update on the 14610, I won't be buying those anymore. I'll be going back to the 14459 size on my Integra if I choose to buy another PureONE.
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Thanks for the update on the 14610, I won't be buying those anymore. I'll be going back to the 14459 size on my Integra if I choose to buy another PureONE.
Well, I'm going to see what Purolator has to say about it. Could be that it's still 98% effective at 20 microns.
Is the 14459 an alternative to the 14610? The 14459's OD is about 0.45" larger than the 14610. The 14612 is the short version of the 14610, but not sure if it's rated 99.9% at 20u or 40u.
Thanks for the update on the 14610, I won't be buying those anymore. I'll be going back to the 14459 size on my Integra if I choose to buy another PureONE.
Well, I'm going to see what Purolator has to say about it. Could be that it's still 98% effective at 20 microns.
Is the 14459 an alternative to the 14610? The 14459's OD is about 0.45" larger than the 14610. The 14612 is the short version of the 14610, but not sure if it's rated 99.9% at 20u or 40u.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Thanks for the update on the 14610, I won't be buying those anymore. I'll be going back to the 14459 size on my Integra if I choose to buy another PureONE.
Well, I'm going to see what Purolator has to say about it. Could be that it's still 98% effective at 20 microns.
Is the 14459 an alternative to the 14610? The 14459's OD is about 0.45" larger than the 14610. The 14612 is the short version of the 14610, but not sure if it's rated 99.9% at 20u or 40u.
I know that the 14610, and the 14459 has a larger diamter that will not fit on my engine, not enough clearance. Both of those filters also fit different mitsubishi's
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Thanks for the update on the 14610, I won't be buying those anymore. I'll be going back to the 14459 size on my Integra if I choose to buy another PureONE.
Well, I'm going to see what Purolator has to say about it. Could be that it's still 98% effective at 20 microns.
Is the 14459 an alternative to the 14610? The 14459's OD is about 0.45" larger than the 14610. The 14612 is the short version of the 14610, but not sure if it's rated 99.9% at 20u or 40u.
I know that the 14610, and the 14459 has a larger diamter that will not fit on my engine, not enough clearance. Both of those filters also fit different mitsubishi's
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Jdblya
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Well, I'm going to see what Purolator has to say about it. Could be that it's still 98% effective at 20 microns.
I know that the 14610 fits my Mitsubishi 3.8l and a lot of other mitsubsihis also.
The 14610 fits tons of vehicles. I'm sure the PureONE version of the 14610 has a better filtering efficiency than the Classic Purolator in the 14610 version.
I'm making Purolator think about how they advertise this efficiency information - it's kind of misleading since I (and many others here) had no idea that 4 of the spin-on filters are different than the "99.9% at 20u" claim.
I haven't heard back yet from them yet ... I think they are milling over the questions. The "As Applicable" that Purolator came back with earlier in this thread concerning the efficiency was actually NOT related to the filter efficiency, but rather only to the anti-drain back valve. If you look a the website or a box carefully, you can see the single asterisk (*) or double asterisk (**) to what the note really ties to. Purolator can't even read their own notes correctly.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Well, I'm going to see what Purolator has to say about it. Could be that it's still 98% effective at 20 microns.
I know that the 14610 fits my Mitsubishi 3.8l and a lot of other mitsubsihis also.
The 14610 fits tons of vehicles. I'm sure the PureONE version of the 14610 has a better filtering efficiency than the Classic Purolator in the 14610 version.
I'm making Purolator think about how they advertise this efficiency information - it's kind of misleading since I (and many others here) had no idea that 4 of the spin-on filters are different than the "99.9% at 20u" claim.
I haven't heard back yet from them yet ... I think they are milling over the questions. The "As Applicable" that Purolator came back with earlier in this thread concerning the efficiency was actually NOT related to the filter efficiency, but rather only to the anti-drain back valve. If you look a the website or a box carefully, you can see the single asterisk (*) or double asterisk (**) to what the note really ties to. Purolator can't even read their own notes correctly.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Thanks for the update on the 14610, I won't be buying those anymore. I'll be going back to the 14459 size on my Integra if I choose to buy another PureONE.
Well, I'm going to see what Purolator has to say about it. Could be that it's still 98% effective at 20 microns.
Is the 14459 an alternative to the 14610? The 14459's OD is about 0.45" larger than the 14610. The 14612 is the short version of the 14610, but not sure if it's rated 99.9% at 20u or 40u.
Yes, the 14459 is a wider version of the 14610. According to Wix, the 14610 (or 1356 in their number classification system) has a better beta ratio than the 14459. That's why I had been experimenting between the two. But it must just be among the Wix filters that it holds true.
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Thanks for the update on the 14610, I won't be buying those anymore. I'll be going back to the 14459 size on my Integra if I choose to buy another PureONE.
Well, I'm going to see what Purolator has to say about it. Could be that it's still 98% effective at 20 microns.
Is the 14459 an alternative to the 14610? The 14459's OD is about 0.45" larger than the 14610. The 14612 is the short version of the 14610, but not sure if it's rated 99.9% at 20u or 40u.
Yes, the 14459 is a wider version of the 14610. According to Wix, the 14610 (or 1356 in their number classification system) has a better beta ratio than the 14459. That's why I had been experimenting between the two. But it must just be among the Wix filters that it holds true.
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Yes, the 14459 is a wider version of the 14610. According to Wix, the 14610 (or 1356 in their number classification system) has a better beta ratio than the 14459. That's why I had been experimenting between the two. But it must just be among the Wix filters that it holds true.
I've never seen Purolator publish Beta Ratios for their PureONE ... you have data?, or a link to that data?
If the PureONE PL14459 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns, I highly doubt the WIX has a better Beta Ratio than the PureONE.
Yes, the 14459 is a wider version of the 14610. According to Wix, the 14610 (or 1356 in their number classification system) has a better beta ratio than the 14459. That's why I had been experimenting between the two. But it must just be among the Wix filters that it holds true.
I've never seen Purolator publish Beta Ratios for their PureONE ... you have data?, or a link to that data?
If the PureONE PL14459 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns, I highly doubt the WIX has a better Beta Ratio than the PureONE.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Yes, the 14459 is a wider version of the 14610. According to Wix, the 14610 (or 1356 in their number classification system) has a better beta ratio than the 14459. That's why I had been experimenting between the two. But it must just be among the Wix filters that it holds true.
I've never seen Purolator publish Beta Ratios for their PureONE ... you have data?, or a link to that data?
If the PureONE PL14459 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns, I highly doubt the WIX has a better Beta Ratio than the PureONE.
I was referring to Wix's numbers for their Wix filters. Sorry, I worded that poorly. I was trying to say that between the Wix 1334 (Purolator 14459) and the Wix 1356 (Purolator 14610) they say that their 1356 is better in terms of filtration than the 1334. So I assumed that it would be the same between the Purolator 14459 and Purolator 14610, without seeing their published numbers (which I haven't seen).
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Yes, the 14459 is a wider version of the 14610. According to Wix, the 14610 (or 1356 in their number classification system) has a better beta ratio than the 14459. That's why I had been experimenting between the two. But it must just be among the Wix filters that it holds true.
I've never seen Purolator publish Beta Ratios for their PureONE ... you have data?, or a link to that data?
If the PureONE PL14459 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns, I highly doubt the WIX has a better Beta Ratio than the PureONE.
I was referring to Wix's numbers for their Wix filters. Sorry, I worded that poorly. I was trying to say that between the Wix 1334 (Purolator 14459) and the Wix 1356 (Purolator 14610) they say that their 1356 is better in terms of filtration than the 1334. So I assumed that it would be the same between the Purolator 14459 and Purolator 14610, without seeing their published numbers (which I haven't seen).
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
I was referring to Wix's numbers for their Wix filters. Sorry, I worded that poorly. I was trying to say that between the Wix 1334 (Purolator 14459) and the Wix 1356 (Purolator 14610) they say that their 1356 is better in terms of filtration than the 1334. So I assumed that it would be the same between the Purolator 14459 and Purolator 14610, without seeing their published numbers (which I haven't seen).
Got ya now. Yes, I've notice that too with the WIX/NAPA Gold filters - since they are the only manufacture I see publish Beta Ratio numbers. For instance, the NAPA Gold 1356 has better beta ratio numbers than their 1365. The 1356 is the longer version (~3/4") of the 1365, but they both use the same filtering media. It seems the size of the filter has some factor in the beta ratio/efficiency of the filter.
Could be that in the testing they push the same flow rate through the filters, and with a smaller filter element the PSID is slightly more and hence that causes more larger particles to be pushed through the filter and reduces the efficiency slightly.
I was referring to Wix's numbers for their Wix filters. Sorry, I worded that poorly. I was trying to say that between the Wix 1334 (Purolator 14459) and the Wix 1356 (Purolator 14610) they say that their 1356 is better in terms of filtration than the 1334. So I assumed that it would be the same between the Purolator 14459 and Purolator 14610, without seeing their published numbers (which I haven't seen).
Got ya now. Yes, I've notice that too with the WIX/NAPA Gold filters - since they are the only manufacture I see publish Beta Ratio numbers. For instance, the NAPA Gold 1356 has better beta ratio numbers than their 1365. The 1356 is the longer version (~3/4") of the 1365, but they both use the same filtering media. It seems the size of the filter has some factor in the beta ratio/efficiency of the filter.
Could be that in the testing they push the same flow rate through the filters, and with a smaller filter element the PSID is slightly more and hence that causes more larger particles to be pushed through the filter and reduces the efficiency slightly.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
A larger filter of the same media composition will have a lower velocity of fluid through it. This will increase the efficiency .....to a point. At some point in the particle distribution you'll end up with too many larger pores and more biasing toward larger particles finding nothing to stop them.
A bigger bypass filter has a nominal single pass of (maybe) 19 nominal ..but is a 10um filter due to the 1-3 gallon per minute operational condition.
A bigger bypass filter has a nominal single pass of (maybe) 19 nominal ..but is a 10um filter due to the 1-3 gallon per minute operational condition.
- Status
Similar threads
