Originally Posted By: jk_636
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!
Oh, the [censored] is strong with this thread. My "old" stock is still only 15-18 or so months old... and I am more than sure that many of the same failing filters are out there. Actually, the difference between one of my filters and yours is only a couple of months. A single filter (which was not a suspect model number - as it is a non-metal seem) does not debunk that Purolator has a tearing problem with a significant likelihood of that product remaining on the shelf nor does it confirm that Purolator has corrected the issue. If you had a few 14610 10241 or 14459 operated for OEM spec-ed OCI (ie 5,000, 7,500, or 15,000-Honda 2X intervals) then you might have a case.
You only ran this filter for 50% of the potential miles spec-ed by your owners manual. Considering you were using Syn and not Conv, the 3,000mi interval in this application (rotation B), you might as well be claiming "victory" at halftime. It is "ok" but nothing to glorify Purolator about solving their issues (because they have not). It is a $7 filter with 3,000 miles (we should almost NEVER see a failure at this interval... but we do). There was one picture I posted of a $3 filter with 3X miles looking in a lot better shape than your filter. Considering the amount of pleat deformation at 3K miles and Purolator's brittle media, you could have had a tear at 4K... but I guess we will know know that...
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?
Oh, the [censored] is strong with this thread. My "old" stock is still only 15-18 or so months old... and I am more than sure that many of the same failing filters are out there. Actually, the difference between one of my filters and yours is only a couple of months. A single filter (which was not a suspect model number - as it is a non-metal seem) does not debunk that Purolator has a tearing problem with a significant likelihood of that product remaining on the shelf nor does it confirm that Purolator has corrected the issue. If you had a few 14610 10241 or 14459 operated for OEM spec-ed OCI (ie 5,000, 7,500, or 15,000-Honda 2X intervals) then you might have a case.
You only ran this filter for 50% of the potential miles spec-ed by your owners manual. Considering you were using Syn and not Conv, the 3,000mi interval in this application (rotation B), you might as well be claiming "victory" at halftime. It is "ok" but nothing to glorify Purolator about solving their issues (because they have not). It is a $7 filter with 3,000 miles (we should almost NEVER see a failure at this interval... but we do). There was one picture I posted of a $3 filter with 3X miles looking in a lot better shape than your filter. Considering the amount of pleat deformation at 3K miles and Purolator's brittle media, you could have had a tear at 4K... but I guess we will know know that...