Recent Topics
185/60/14 with 195/70/14
by GreeCguy
1 minute 46 seconds ago
Bloomberg article on Techron
by chiefsfan1
8 minutes 4 seconds ago
38% of the earth is made of .... Bridgmanite???
by aa1986
17 minutes 47 seconds ago
1998 Buick Century Custom Steering 56k miles
by Gito
21 minutes 52 seconds ago
Price Check...4Runner
by klt1986
38 minutes 13 seconds ago
Quaker State score at Autozone!
by RamFan
Today at 05:08 PM
Anyone that can read Chinese or Japanese??
by Darwin1138
Today at 04:10 PM
PureOne PL14459 cut-open
by filb14
Today at 03:30 PM
Edge Gold Btl + M1 AFE 0w-30 $1 Qt at AZ **PICS!**
by Turk
Today at 03:07 PM
Bon Jovi is as good as Beyoncé
by 285south
Today at 02:52 PM
Robots are lookin good!
by andrewg
Today at 02:47 PM
North Korea Internet down...
by andrewg
Today at 02:42 PM
Newest Members
Kaiser_Sosse, jnormando, consolidated, mike_a, dlayman
52261 Registered Users
Who's Online
112 registered (Alltherage, 2010_FX4, aa1986, 3800Series, 901Memphis, AandPDan, 10 invisible), 1457 Guests and 234 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
52261 Members
66 Forums
223808 Topics
3549956 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 8 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#3047463 - 06/27/13 05:53 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: ZeeOSix]
sayjac Offline


Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 8498
Loc: The Old North State
Yes particle counts are something offered by B/S in addition to/beyond the standard UOA, the latter of which I was referencing in my previous posts. Many just offer up the common standard UOA (no particle count included) as evidence one way or the other regarding oil filter efficacy.

I will post the link below to the thread where B/S says there's no difference in insolubles between filter brands. In a 'standard' UOA (no particle counts) insolubles is what is generally referenced for wear.

Now particle counts is another subject beyond the standard UOA to which I was referring. I'll not get into them. Just that saying the standard UOA shows some evidence regarding filter effectiveness is not valid/reliable.

Blackstone says oil filter brand doesn't matter.

Top
#3047553 - 06/27/13 06:54 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: sayjac]
ZeeOSix Offline


Registered: 07/22/10
Posts: 7694
Loc: PNW
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Yes particle counts are something offered by B/S in addition to/beyond the standard UOA, the latter of which I was referencing in my previous posts. Many just offer up the common standard UOA (no particle count included) as evidence one way or the other regarding oil filter efficacy.

I will post the link below to the thread where B/S says there's no difference in insolubles between filter brands. In a 'standard' UOA (no particle counts) insolubles is what is generally referenced for wear.

Now particle counts is another subject beyond the standard UOA to which I was referring. I'll not get into them. Just that saying the standard UOA shows some evidence regarding filter effectiveness is not valid/reliable.

Blackstone says oil filter brand doesn't matter.


Read the link and other associated links about the Blackstone UOA testing and their comments. Blackstone did specifically say in the header of the UOA report: "low silicone and insoluables indicate proper air and oil filtration".

And they also said in email traffic: "Theoretically, switching to a better oil filter would reduce insolubles."

Guess it also depends on what the size is of these insolubles are. Most of them are probably well below what even a good high efficiency oil filter can catch anyway.

Who knows, maybe he had one of those PL14459s with the blown out media. I guess it would pay to cut open the oil filter and look at it anytime a UOA is performed to make sure the filter was actually OK during that OCI the UOA is for.


Top
#3047948 - 06/28/13 05:17 AM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: ZeeOSix]
sayjac Offline


Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 8498
Loc: The Old North State
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
...... Blackstone did specifically say in the header of the UOA report: "low silicone and insoluables indicate proper air and oil filtration".

And they also said in email traffic: "Theoretically, switching to a better oil filter would reduce insolubles.".......

And then it continues......."However, we don't normally see much difference between the various oil filters that are on the market, so I couldn't tell you which one to try."

From this B/S email they see no significant difference in insolubles which is what is tested in a 'standard' UOA, between 'any' oil filter not just the OP's of that thread. So, no correlation in obtaining "proper" oil filtration and use of any specific filter, high vs low(er) efficiency filters.

"Theoretically" I might agree with them depending on the size of the insoluables, however as B/S stated standard UOA's haven't confirmed/proved that theory.

Top
#3047972 - 06/28/13 06:06 AM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: ZeeOSix]
Hokiefyd Offline


Registered: 06/24/04
Posts: 11720
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Again, I throw the 14459 in as a spoiler here. The 14459 has 85 sq-in of media and the 14610 has 105 sq-in. They are both PureOnes, and one is not rated at higher capacity than the other.


To my knowledge, Purolator doesn't rate the capacity of every filter. They give a representative part number (30001 series) and use that as a comparison. The PL14459 very well may have a different capacity than the PL14610, but we wouldn't know it because Purolator doesn't list the capacity for each part number.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The reason that the 144610 is rated at 40 microns has no real reason to back it up (many here have tried to figure out why but nothing holds water), and I can't imagine that Purolator would use different media on just four our of their spin-on filters that have the 40 micron rating.


Few on here acknowledge the possibility that Purolator may be using different medias in different part numbers to closer mimick the specifications and behavior of the actual OES filter.
_________________________
Cheers,
Jason

2008 Honda CR-V EX-L (Peak 0W-20)
2005 Acura MDX Touring (VNG 5W-20)

Top
#3047976 - 06/28/13 06:10 AM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: ZeeOSix]
Hokiefyd Offline


Registered: 06/24/04
Posts: 11720
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
You are comparing apples to oranges. A full synthetic media traps debris differently that the non-synthetic media. The synthetic media has more "3-D" media volume. If you compare just the surface area of the full synthetic to the non-synthetic media in the same filter model, you'll see that the full synthetic will have way less surface area ... yet it has way more holding capacity due to the "3-D" variable of the much thicker media.


Yes, the media types are different, but I think it's key to recognize that even with the synthetic media, Purolator had to give up some efficiency to realize the capacity they were looking for.
_________________________
Cheers,
Jason

2008 Honda CR-V EX-L (Peak 0W-20)
2005 Acura MDX Touring (VNG 5W-20)

Top
#3048301 - 06/28/13 12:06 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: sayjac]
ZeeOSix Offline


Registered: 07/22/10
Posts: 7694
Loc: PNW
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
...... Blackstone did specifically say in the header of the UOA report: "low silicone and insoluables indicate proper air and oil filtration".

And they also said in email traffic: "Theoretically, switching to a better oil filter would reduce insolubles.".......


And then it continues......."However, we don't normally see much difference between the various oil filters that are on the market, so I couldn't tell you which one to try."

From this B/S email they see no significant difference in insolubles which is what is tested in a 'standard' UOA, between 'any' oil filter not just the OP's of that thread. So, no correlation in obtaining "proper" oil filtration and use of any specific filter, high vs low(er) efficiency filters.

"Theoretically" I might agree with them depending on the size of the insoluables, however as B/S stated standard UOA's haven't confirmed/proved that theory.


Yes, I saw the "continues" part in Blackstone's statement. Could be that the insolubles are way too small for even "high efficiency" (ie, A PureOne at 99.9% @ 20 microns) to make any noticeable difference in the measured the insolubles.

Only thing that's not clear in the B/S insolubles comments is that they really don't clarify how they are determining if filters on the market make a difference or not. In order to do that, someone would have to send in UOAs with all variables being the same except the oil filter being used, and look at the measured insolubles to see what effect just the oil filter has. I doubt any one B/S customer has really been that regimental to give B/S enough data to make a conclusion for sure. Unless B/S has done it's own controlled test to determine the effect of filter efficiency on insoluble levels, they only have customer oil samples to do by.

Top
#3048328 - 06/28/13 12:21 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: Hokiefyd]
ZeeOSix Offline


Registered: 07/22/10
Posts: 7694
Loc: PNW
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Again, I throw the 14459 in as a spoiler here. The 14459 has 85 sq-in of media and the 14610 has 105 sq-in. They are both PureOnes, and one is not rated at higher capacity than the other.


To my knowledge, Purolator doesn't rate the capacity of every filter. They give a representative part number (30001 series) and use that as a comparison. The PL14459 very well may have a different capacity than the PL14610, but we wouldn't know it because Purolator doesn't list the capacity for each part number.


Yes, Purolator uses the 30001 as it's reference point for the efficiency and most likely the holding capacity (they say 13 grams for the PureOne on their website). So that means if say the 14459 has half the media surface area, then one could say the holding capacity is scalable and is only 6.5 grams for the 14459 for example.

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The reason that the 144610 is rated at 40 microns has no real reason to back it up (many here have tried to figure out why but nothing holds water), and I can't imagine that Purolator would use different media on just four our of their spin-on filters that have the 40 micron rating.


Few on here acknowledge the possibility that Purolator may be using different medias in different part numbers to closer mimick the specifications and behavior of the actual OES filter.


I doubt that Purolator is doing that - why make 4 spin-ons a different design than the rest of the filter line? I think when they design an oil filter they make sure it can flow well enough without excessive media delta-P to meet the engine's oiling system specs (ie, oil pump volume output vs engine RPM), and give it a bypass setting that matches the filter's flow performance and engine oiling system parameters. If an oil filter is designed to flow and filter well, it will meet the specs of hundreds of applications, that's why one filter can be used on hundreds of different vehicles as seen in the filter application catalogs. Oil filters are not really that "matched" to any particular vehicle.

The example given in post #1 showing the comparison between the Honda OEM and the PureOne for the same vehicle shows that PureOne hasn't tried to match the flow vs PSID parameter of the Honda filter. Purolator has made a more efficient filter with a little more flow resistance (making the PSID slightly higher), but with a positive displacement oil pump that slight increase in PSID doesn't really matter.


Top
#3048349 - 06/28/13 12:31 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: ZeeOSix]
sayjac Offline


Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 8498
Loc: The Old North State
Pointless to take this UOA discussion any further. I agree with Jim, the Fleetguard paper, and acknowledge the statement from B/S saying they don't see any difference in standard UOA analysis with respect insolubles (which is the measurement tested in standard UOA's), and oil filter used. Standard UOA's are not a valid/reliable test of oil filter efficacy. Until a scientific study or studies are published using 'standard' UOA's as posted here on Bitog showing a correlation with efficiency of filter used, I'll stand by that.

That said, my general preference like others here is for a filter with higher efficiency as opposed to lower.



Top
#3048392 - 06/28/13 01:06 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: ZeeOSix]
Hokiefyd Offline


Registered: 06/24/04
Posts: 11720
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I doubt that Purolator is doing that - why make 4 spin-ons a different design than the rest of the filter line? I think when they design an oil filter they make sure it can flow well enough without excessive media delta-P to meet the engine's oiling system specs (ie, oil pump volume output vs engine RPM), and give it a bypass setting that matches the filter's flow performance and engine oiling system parameters. If an oil filter is designed to flow and filter well, it will meet the specs of hundreds of applications, that's why one filter can be used on hundreds of different vehicles as seen in the filter application catalogs. Oil filters are not really that "matched" to any particular vehicle.


One very important aspect is missing from above: filter change intervals. At least for the 14610 series, this filter can be expected to be on the car for up to 20,000 miles. Any of them, from the white can Classic to the blue can Synthetic. It can be expected because Honda recommends two OCIs for each filter, Hondas will sometimes go 10,000 miles on a MM OCI, and Honda is the predominant application for the 14610.

Recall that Purolator's warranty states very specifically that the limited warranty period is "the number of miles and driving severity published in the owner's vehicle manual as the recommended service interval for filter replacements."

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

Purolator has a very compelling reason to ensure that even its white can Classic stands a chance of 20,000 miles in an engine.

I wouldn't be so quick to write-off all Classic filters as equal, or all PureONE filters as equal. I'm not saying that the 14610 is *designed* differently from others, but I am saying that it'd be very easy in a mass production environment to use a slightly different media in some filters than in others, even in the same line (Classic, PureONE, Synthetic, etc).
_________________________
Cheers,
Jason

2008 Honda CR-V EX-L (Peak 0W-20)
2005 Acura MDX Touring (VNG 5W-20)

Top
#3048398 - 06/28/13 01:10 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: sayjac]
Hokiefyd Offline


Registered: 06/24/04
Posts: 11720
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: sayjac
That said, my general preference like others here is for a filter with higher efficiency as opposed to lower.


Mine is as well. My point is not to advocate for less efficient filters, or to promote their use.
_________________________
Cheers,
Jason

2008 Honda CR-V EX-L (Peak 0W-20)
2005 Acura MDX Touring (VNG 5W-20)

Top
#3048401 - 06/28/13 01:11 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: gregk24]
ZeeOSix Offline


Registered: 07/22/10
Posts: 7694
Loc: PNW
Yeah, it's one of those 'round and round' discussions. I'm not totally convinced that these tests were done in a way that gives the whole story. They are always looking at particles much smaller in size than the filters they are using can effectively filter too, so seems like the data is non correlating to some degree. Would be nice to see a test that does a much larger range of particle size, but we have already seen some of those tests (GM and Amsoil particle size vs. wear) and the results were that better filters do keep more wear particles out of the oil.

So like you, the conclusion for me it to use high efficiency oil filters because it "can't hurt" to do so. grin

Top
#3048407 - 06/28/13 01:17 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: Hokiefyd]
ZeeOSix Offline


Registered: 07/22/10
Posts: 7694
Loc: PNW
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I doubt that Purolator is doing that - why make 4 spin-ons a different design than the rest of the filter line? I think when they design an oil filter they make sure it can flow well enough without excessive media delta-P to meet the engine's oiling system specs (ie, oil pump volume output vs engine RPM), and give it a bypass setting that matches the filter's flow performance and engine oiling system parameters. If an oil filter is designed to flow and filter well, it will meet the specs of hundreds of applications, that's why one filter can be used on hundreds of different vehicles as seen in the filter application catalogs. Oil filters are not really that "matched" to any particular vehicle.


One very important aspect is missing from above: filter change intervals. At least for the 14610 series, this filter can be expected to be on the car for up to 20,000 miles. Any of them, from the white can Classic to the blue can Synthetic. It can be expected because Honda recommends two OCIs for each filter, Hondas will sometimes go 10,000 miles on a MM OCI, and Honda is the predominant application for the 14610.


So based on that logic, there are probably other Honda vehicles that could go 20K on an oil filter based on the OLM and a filter change every other oil change. If so, which Honda vehicles don't use the PL14610, but rather a PureOne that is rated at the higher efficiency level of 99.9% @ 20 microns? If there are some, then obviously Purolator hasn't designed the PL14610 around Honda's potentially long filter change interval of upto 20K miles.

Top
#3048421 - 06/28/13 01:27 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: ZeeOSix]
Hokiefyd Offline


Registered: 06/24/04
Posts: 11720
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
So based on that logic, there are probably other Honda vehicles that could go 20K on an oil filter based on the OLM and a filter change every other oil change. If so, which Honda vehicles don't use the PL14610, but rather a PureOne that is rated at the higher efficiency level of 99.9% @ 20 microns? If there are some, then obviously Purolator hasn't designed the PL14610 around Honda's potentially long filter change interval of upto 20K miles.


There may be Hondas that use something besides the 14610 series. If there are Hondas that use a different series, it's probably safe to say that Honda is not the predominant application for that series of filter, and Purolator is probably specifying a media for each part number that is most closely matched to the more popular applications of that particular part number. In this world of multi-use part numbers in the aftermarket, you're not going to be able to nail the OES specs exactly for every single application. You pick a good compromise, test it, and go with it.
_________________________
Cheers,
Jason

2008 Honda CR-V EX-L (Peak 0W-20)
2005 Acura MDX Touring (VNG 5W-20)

Top
#3048508 - 06/28/13 02:59 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: gregk24]
KCJeep Offline


Registered: 06/30/11
Posts: 4760
Loc: Mahzurrah!
Here's a good thread by Texan4life with some cut open L14610 pics. Only 1,100 miles on it, don't think I'd wanna run it 20k. frown

Puro L14610 Cut Open
_________________________
2004 Jeep GC WJ 4.0 @ 123k Pennzoil YB 5w30 - MoS2
Napa Silver 31516
KIA Sedona 41k, Chevy Lumina 174k, Chrysler Sebring 174k, Chrysler Concorde 99k

Top
#3048509 - 06/28/13 03:03 PM Re: I called Purolator about PL14610 flow rate. [Re: gregk24]
KCJeep Offline


Registered: 06/30/11
Posts: 4760
Loc: Mahzurrah!
Here's another that looked much better IMO.

Another L14610

Here's one on the Pure One the OP actually asked about:

Pure One PL14610
_________________________
2004 Jeep GC WJ 4.0 @ 123k Pennzoil YB 5w30 - MoS2
Napa Silver 31516
KIA Sedona 41k, Chevy Lumina 174k, Chrysler Sebring 174k, Chrysler Concorde 99k

Top
Page 8 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >