Pure One 14610 / Classic 14459 Cut Open Pics.

[Sayjac]

Perhaps you should go back and read.

You said" You might recount the number of pleats", done. That's not doubt?

Quote:
Hard for me to believe you could stretch the media 7 inches more once it's all the way flattened out.
Why am I NOT surprised? Tomorrow, crow will be the order of the day.

fwiw, I've read the linked thread/post many times plus, because I asked the question, barlow pm'd me with the info. Are the PL14610 cans I posted pics of not "stuffed full?" I think so.

One last question, will a pic of the media @ 45" ("flat") finally satisfy you?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: sayjac

Perhaps you should go back and read, told me

You said" You might recount the number of pleats", done. That's not doubt?


Perhaps you should go back and read, because AFTER you suggested I count myself I came back and said yes, I also got 51 pleats off your photo.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2205497#Post2205497

And then I also said this just a few posts above:

Quote:
Ummm ... I told you I ALSO counted 51 after I realized you had photos of the laid out media. Like I said, I'm NOT disputing what YOU have seen with your own eyes.



Originally Posted By: sayjac
Quote:
Hard for me to believe you could stretch the media 7 inches more once it's all the way flattened out.
Why am I NOT surprised? Tomorrow, crow will be the order of the day.

fwiw, I've read the link post many times plus barlow pm'd me with the info. Are the cans I posted pics of not "stuffed full?" I think so.

One last question, will a pic of the media @ 45" finally satisfy you?


I'm just sayin' ... you would have to pull pretty good to make the media strength another 7 inches after it's already stretched out flat. Is it possible? ... surely. Have I tried it? ... no. Would someone in their right mind stretch it to point of failure for an area measurement? ... maybe. Is it the right way to do it? ... no.

Don't be so defensive with someone trying to figure out WTH is going on with these different reported area measurements. If other people are making screwed up measurements then that's great. Or has the 14610 actually changed in media area ... that's the mystery right now.

 

[Sayjac]

You're telling me how effort it takes to stretch the media and you don't even have the media. After the media is flattened it can also be stretched. I just got done saying it takes very little effort to get to 45" to explain barlow's measure. Doubt again.

And 102-105" using a stretched measure is within a margin of error. But I think you know that.

You just know more than me about the PL14610 and the pics I posted. It just has to be a media reduction.

Pics tomorrow.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: sayjac

You just know more than me about the PL14610 and the pics I posted. It just has to be a media reduction.

Seems you're taking this mystery investigation effort in a bad way ...

Now I'm "just sayin' " ... I find it hard to believe that everyone who has measured the media area in the past on a 14610 by cutting out the media and laying it flat, has also stretched it out WAY beyond the point it was initially flat - we're talking 18~20% more (7/38). If so, then they need to be taught how to measure oil filter media area.

 

[kender]

So....this is all over a possible 14 square inch difference in filter area??? LOL!!!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kender
So....this is all over a possible 14 square inch difference in filter area??? LOL!!!

Yeah, 14 sq-in = 15% difference. Give me 15% of your 401K ... you'll never know the difference.

 

[ZeeOSix]

OK ... so I just went down to the garage where I still have the last PL14459 filter I cut open. I have the media cut out of the filter so it can be laid down and stretched out FLAT. Once it is laid down FLAT, if I continue to pull on the media it does NOT stretch out any more. So once it's stretched out flat, that it. You can't make it any longer no matter how hard you pull unless you want to tear it all apart.

So ... just to be clear, we are talking about the FLAT length of the media. NOT the length of it when it's still accordion shaped with pleats.

When you're talking the LENGTH of the media it has to be when it's COMPLETELY FLAT. It can NOT be in the accordion position. Sure, it's easy to stretch it out from the accordion position ... but once completely FLAT, it can NOT be stretch another 18~20% without completely destroying it.

Are we on the same page. When you calculate the media area it has to be the FLAT area.

 

[kender]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
OK ... so I just went down to the garage where I still have the last PL14459 filter I cut open. I have the media cut out of the filter so it can be laid down and stretched out FLAT. Once it is laid down FLAT, if I continue to pull on the media it does NOT stretch out any more. So once it's stretched out flat, that it. You can't make it any longer no matter how hard you pull unless you want to tear it all apart.

So ... just to be clear, we are talking about the FLAT length of the media. NOT the length of it when it's still accordion shaped with pleats.

When you're talking the LENGTH of the media it has to be when it's COMPLETELY FLAT. It can NOT be in the accordion position. Sure, it's easy to stretch it out from the accordion position ... but once completely FLAT, it can NOT be stretch another 18~20% without completely destroying it.

Are we on the same page. When you calculate the media area it has to be the FLAT area.


LOL!!!

 

[ZeeOSix]

kendar = troll activity ? ... you got anything constructive to add to this discussion?

If these other guys who got media area of 105 sq-in and said the media length was 45", then apparently they must have had the media stretched out completely flat, because once it's flat you can not stretch it any more. I proved that with the media I have in the garage from the PL14459.

So, again this suspects me to believe that Purolator has possibly reduce the media area on the 14610.

 

[kender]

It's just an oil filter. It's mass produced. They aren't all gonna be identicle in every detail. Just because this one has 15% less media than "normal" doesn't mean anything. I just think it's funny how much you guys OVER THINK this stuff. That's my opinion. If you don't like it.....

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kender
It's just an oil filter. It's mass produced. They aren't all gonna be identicle in every detail. Just because this one has 15% less media than "normal" doesn't mean anything. I just think it's funny how much you guys OVER THINK this stuff. That's my opinion. If you don't like it.....

You think there's 15% variance in the manufacturing of the filter?

Sure hope Purolator (or even FRAM) can do better than that.

So what do you think the "normal" amount of media area should be in a 14610 filter?

You obviously haven't been reading this board long enough to know the past history on some of this stuff, nor why we debate such things.

 

[barlowc]

So I just PM'd sayjac. When I measured the media length in the referenced thread, I laid it out flat on my workbench. I then ran my finger down the center of it so as to get it perfectly flat. I did not pull or stretch the media, only got it flat.

The numbers we're comparing (i.e. 91 square inches versus 105) were obtained via different means. I measured the length of the media and sayjac estimated the length by multiplying the number of pleats by the pleat depth. I have to believe that's the reason for the discrepancy and not that Purolator has reduced the amount of media used.

I think sayjac is going to lay out the media and measure it today. I just looked and I still have the filter that I cut open and measured down in my basement. This afternoon I'll examine it a bit and count the number of pleats and report back with my findings.

 

[Sayjac]

Here's pics of the media at different stages of expansion. Having done this, I'd suggest that barlowc's flattened measure is likely the more accurate measure than using pleat depth and multiplying. Also more work to do.

For reference, the long (oily) cardboard is ~42".
First pic is media just as is/unflattened ~33".
Second pic is stretched to my calculation using pleat depth ~38.25, note too pleats not flat.
Final pics at ~45", media flat(as I could get it). And ~2&3/8 width.

 

[barlowc]

I just counted the pleats in the one that I still had in my basement and came up with the same number as sayjac. So it seems the mystery has been solved and Purolator has not reduced the amount of media they're using in the PL14610.

Kudos to sayjac for cutting the filter open, sharing his findings, and then checking things out when questions came up. It's great to see the PL14610 shining every time that one is cut open. It further confirms what all of us on this site know... the PureONE is probably the best filter available for the money. Although, I still wish Purolator had stuck with the blue paint and not gone to the yellow textured stuff.

 

[ltslimjim]

Great way of going about it guys. +2!

 

[demarpaint]

I'm still using them, and glad, inspite of the bashing they've taken in some of these threads. Thanks for posting!

 

[ZeeOSix]

sayjac & barlowc - good to see the reason for the difference seen in various measurements of the media area.

Originally Posted By: barlowc
The numbers we're comparing (i.e. 91 square inches versus 105) were obtained via different means. I measured the length of the media and sayjac estimated the length by multiplying the number of pleats by the pleat depth. I have to believe that's the reason for the discrepancy and not that Purolator has reduced the amount of media used.


IMO, doing the calculation should get you very close to the same answer if pleat and width measurements are done accurately. Cuts down on the effort and mess involved too.

So if you guys measure the pleat depth very carefully, what do you get? I think the estimate was 3/8", but if it's say really 7/16" then it would calculate out to ~105 sq-in.

Example - a 1/16" difference in pleat depth:
3/8" pleat --> (2 x 51) x 3/8 x 2.375 = 90.8 sq-in
7/16 pleat --> (2 x 51) x 7/16 x 2.375 = 106 sq-in

sayjac - wondering if the laid out media length method is done on the 14459, how does it compare to the calculated number?

 

[barlowc]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
So if you guys measure the pleat depth very carefully, what do you get? I think the estimate was 3/8", but if it's say really 7/16" then it would calculate out to ~105 sq-in.

7/16" - 15/32" from the center of a pleat's peak to the center of a peak's valley.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: barlowc
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
So if you guys measure the pleat depth very carefully, what do you get? I think the estimate was 3/8", but if it's say really 7/16" then it would calculate out to ~105 sq-in.

7/16" - 15/32" from the center of a pleat's peak to the center of a peak's valley.


I still had a PL14459 and a PL20195 cut open in the garage from the last oil changes. I also got 7/16" pleat depth on both after some careful measurements with a metal scale with 1/32" graduations. Looks like Purolator uses 7/16" deep pleats on many of their filters.

 

[Sayjac]

Dang, this thread/media area measure has been nitpicked to death by one poster to justify the knee jerk implied conclusion, falsely so, of a media reduction in the posted PL14610.

Yes, it's quite possible/likely with 'the media removed' that the pleats depth measure is 7/16" rather the 3/8" measure obtained by using a ruler (Starrett metal in pics) with the media still attached. Seeing as barlowc confirmed it as such using his media, that is the case. That said, I'm not going to now re-measure just to satisfy some need to prove why the media could be flattened to ~45", as I stated/restated it could and have now proven visually.

Curiously though, the 3/8" 'media attached measure' used, is the same measure is the same measure used in this thread, arrived at in the same media on manner, which was fine and unquestioned then. But then, there was no peculiar need to prove another poster(me) wrong, or when that poster, proven correct, the reason for the misjudgement/doubt of the poster's statements.

Bottom line, I don't really care whether the media 3/8", 7/16' deep or 38.25", 45" long. As long as the same method is used so there is some comparable data. So lesson learned here, from now on I'll continue to post dissection pics of filters, but I'm not going to be concerned with posting media area.

The important thing here is both the P1 and Classic filters posted here are good solidly constructed filters for the money. And as said, the PL14610 is the same filter it's been, stuffed with media.

Just want to thank all those poster's for the kind words for the pics. Also, want to thank barlowc for taking the time to confirm my later pics and pleat information, glad you saved all your contents. If not, I fear my later (flattened media) pics could have been viewed as some sort of optical illusion or something like that.

fwiw, I had figured the flattened length of the L14459, but now it's just not that important.