PurolatorBoss cut open after 16,000 miles

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Baracoa
I initially posted the YouTube link about the PurolatorBoss cut open after 16,000 miles so that it could be evaluated on its own merit and not for comparison purposes.....

I watched it yesterday and my thought was the topic Boss filter looked like a well made filter and like it had done it's job for the 16k miles. I noted it is a smaller application Boss, (either 6607,7317,4967, or 4386 equivalent) adbv indentions/cuts in that design not an issue.

I would say the yt maker makes it seem that if one uses the Boss with anything other than synthetic oil, it might not work right or something might happen to the engine. Point should be that to get max ROI from the Boss (or any extended oci filter) it is best used for extended ocis and that synthetic oil is best suited to that purpose. I got his point, but a neophyte might not understand exactly what he was saying.

As an aside, I waited to comment on the post as I was interested to see how it would go. Went about as I expected.

 

[goodtimes]

Relying on one efficiency test that does not mimic closely real world use in an engine is the question. Mercedes uses the Mann fleece filter, which is the same media apparently as the Boss. They know a thing or two about engines. Toyota, Ford, Honda, Mobil 1, all use their own medias not found on any aftermarket filters.
I for one wouldn't assume a particular crowd is correct just because they are strong willed at delivering their opinion. Advertising is a very powerful tool. The efficiency test is what is, a best effort under a cost limit, a four hour heavy particle load test using a test dust, in a lab. If that is real world use, OK.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

He sounds like he's from Canada, ay?

 

[fdcg27]

I appreciate your efforts.
I recently bought four of these filters on deep clearance ($3.00 each) in part numbers I can use and it gladdens me to know that they're of very stout construction.
There are a lot of folks here who will never use a Purolator brand filter again, but things change and manufacturers do listen to feedback and do learn from their mistakes.
Thanks for having taken the time to give us a little lesson in reality.

 

[CrAlt]

Originally Posted By: maxdustington



What I find strange is how the public somehow figured out that Fram sucked, either from leaked BITOG knowledge from before social media took over, or by assuming that cardboard end caps mean low quality. Many BITOGers have been or are fooled by them, so it can be reasoned that the public sure likes them metal end caps.

I wish the public knew the truth about Fram! Silicone ADBV brand wide and value at all price points.


I think most people found out about the cardboard end caps from the oil filter "study" on the minimopar.net website. That came out in 2000 or so. That study was linked to by just about every car forum and mailing list back then. It then spread off the internet and to the general public. Those photo's where passed around for years.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Relying on one efficiency test that does not mimic closely real world use in an engine is the question.


Thr ISO 4548-12 efficiency test was developed by a committee of oil filter testng experts from around the world, and as a result has been used in the oil filter industry for the last 18 years.

Yeah, it must be totally useless in comparing filtering performance of oil filters . As has been said before, I've never seen any SAE paper or independant technical paper showing that an oil filter that tests low in ISO 4548-12 somehow magically becomes way more efficient in real world use, and vice versa. If anyone has found such a paper, please post up the link.

I have seen an older SAE paper (the "Bus Study") that showed a direct correlation between oil filter efficiency determined by lab testing to the cleanliness of the oil (UOA), which is real world testing of the filter's efficiency performance.

 

[TheLawnRanger]

I honestly wish Fram would reinvent itself as a premium brand. I bet even with the negative publicity it still controls 30 to 40 percent of the market. It's likely the only oil filter brand the average person can name off the top of their head.

 

[nthach]

I too was a Fram basher I admit, but now I won't hesitate to use them if I can't find OEM or Wix. If it's good enough for Honda or Subaru, it's good enough for me.

Even big Detroit Diesel engines besides the newest Mercedes platform motors(MBE and DD series) are using Fram-made filters from the factory.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: maxdustington

What I find strange is how the public somehow figured out that Fram sucked, either from leaked BITOG knowledge from before social media took over, or by assuming that cardboard end caps mean low quality.


This goes back to the late 90's "Knize family Mini Mopar oil filter study"

Also, Napa for many years had both a Fram EG and a Napa oil filter on the counter, cut open.
That started in the early 90's I believe.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Relying on one efficiency test that does not mimic closely real world use in an engine is the question.


Thr ISO 4548-12 efficiency test was developed by a committee of oil filter testng experts from around the world, and as a result has been used in the oil filter industry for the last 18 years.

Yeah, it must be totally useless in comparing filtering performance of oil filters . As has been said before, I've never seen any SAE paper or independant technical paper showing that an oil filter that tests low in ISO 4548-12 somehow magically becomes way more efficient in real world use, and vice versa. If anyone has found such a paper, please post up the link.

I have seen an older SAE paper (the "Bus Study") that showed a direct correlation between oil filter efficiency determined by lab testing to the cleanliness of the oil (UOA), which is real world testing of the filter's efficiency performance.


The efficiency test is what is, a best effort under a cost limit, a four hour heavy particle load test using a test dust, in a lab. If that is real world use, OK.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Relying on one efficiency test that does not mimic closely real world use in an engine is the question.


Thr ISO 4548-12 efficiency test was developed by a committee of oil filter testng experts from around the world, and as a result has been used in the oil filter industry for the last 18 years.

Yeah, it must be totally useless in comparing filtering performance of oil filters . As has been said before, I've never seen any SAE paper or independant technical paper showing that an oil filter that tests low in ISO 4548-12 somehow magically becomes way more efficient in real world use, and vice versa. If anyone has found such a paper, please post up the link.

I have seen an older SAE paper (the "Bus Study") that showed a direct correlation between oil filter efficiency determined by lab testing to the cleanliness of the oil (UOA), which is real world testing of the filter's efficiency performance.


The efficiency test is what is, a best effort under a cost limit, a four hour heavy particle load test using a test dust, in a lab. If that is real world use, OK.


Like said before, here is also test data correlation that shows filters that test more efficient in the lab also keep the oil cleaner in real world use.

Never seen any papers written that say low efficiency filters keep oil cleaner than high efficiency filters. If anyone has an actual controlled study with data that proves that, then please post up the links/data.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Relying on one efficiency test that does not mimic closely real world use in an engine is the question.


Thr ISO 4548-12 efficiency test was developed by a committee of oil filter testng experts from around the world, and as a result has been used in the oil filter industry for the last 18 years.

Yeah, it must be totally useless in comparing filtering performance of oil filters . As has been said before, I've never seen any SAE paper or independant technical paper showing that an oil filter that tests low in ISO 4548-12 somehow magically becomes way more efficient in real world use, and vice versa. If anyone has found such a paper, please post up the link.

I have seen an older SAE paper (the "Bus Study") that showed a direct correlation between oil filter efficiency determined by lab testing to the cleanliness of the oil (UOA), which is real world testing of the filter's efficiency performance.


The efficiency test is what is, a best effort under a cost limit, a four hour heavy particle load test using a test dust, in a lab. If that is real world use, OK.


Like said before, here is also test data correlation that shows filters that test more efficient in the lab also keep the oil cleaner in real world use.

Never seen any papers written that say low efficiency filters keep oil cleaner than high efficiency filters. If anyone has an actual controlled study with data that proves that, then please post up the links/data.


There are no papers showing multipass efficiency results using a one gram per thousand mile ( maybe 20 hours) contamination rate. So a 20 gram filter needs to run 400 hours, 100 times the standard test. There is the four hour test which is not real life use, you like it or not, it isn't one g/1000 miles added test dust. There is no argument, it is not the same.
There is a Blackstone labs particle count test showing the Fram Ultra was soundly bettered by a well built no name filter in a real use scenario. This was on an engine that produces much more dirt than a motorcycle engine. What you are going to say does not change the Blackstone results.
If you want cleaner oil in the pan, real world, a Frantz or other will filter slowly but far more effectively than any full flow automotive oil filter. Since so little dirt is actually put into oil over time, they essentially keep the oil clean constantly. Not saying any more on it, it's all been said before.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
There is a Blackstone labs particle count test showing the Fram Ultra was soundly bettered by a well built no name filter in a real use scenario. This was on an engine that produces much more dirt than a motorcycle engine. What you are going to say does not change the Blackstone results.


I knew you'd bring up that single data point. There can be lots of reasons why a Blackstone UOA can be flawed. I said show an actual controlled study, like and SAE paper or similar, not a Blackstone lab report.

Also, a motorcycle engine produces a lot more wear metals because the transmission and wet clutch generates lots more particles than the pistons, cams, chain, etc part of the engine. More than a car engine that is only one half of a motorcycle engine. And yeah, I can rebuttal saying that motorcycle engine UOA particle count showed the used oil was cleaner than the virgin oil ran in it using a 99% @ 20 micron oil filter.

Dig up a real controlled long term study (preferably an SAE paper which is reviewed by a peer group before published) that shows a low efficiency oil filter does better in real world use than a much more efficient oil filter.

 

[jongies3]

I wouldn't have a problem using these (only Purolator product I'd ever consider actually) if I didn't have to worry about closed off louvers or cut ADBV's, and since I can't get them locally, I'm sticking with FRAM!

 

[vwalburn]

What is the efficiency rating of the BOSS filters? What is "99% dirt removal power" anyway?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: vwalburn
What is the efficiency rating of the BOSS filters? What is "99% dirt removal power" anyway?


Info here: LINK

BOSS (black): 99% @ 40 microns

ONE (blue): 99% @ 20 microns

Purolator (red): 96.5% @ 20 microns

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: vwalburn
What is the efficiency rating of the BOSS filters? What is "99% dirt removal power" anyway?


I haven't seen it in writing yet. Some say 40 microns, who knows, someone on the phone saying something is not fact except it's a fact someone on the phone said it. If one is in court and your sole evidence is someone told you this number on the phone, your case is over. The Amsoil and Fram I believe are the ones tied for best with their own written statements. I don't think it matters.

At one gram per thousand miles average dirt generated in an engine, the difference in even 50% and 99% per same micron size (using the four hour standard test %) are going to be meaningless IMO. It is just too small an amount of "dirt" given the hundreds of full oil circulations during real road use.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: vwalburn
What is the efficiency rating of the BOSS filters? What is "99% dirt removal power" anyway?

I haven't seen it in writing yet. Some say 40 microns, who knows, someone on the phone saying something is not fact except it's a fact someone on the phone said it.


If you call Purolator's Tech Dept and they tell you it's 99% @ 40 microns why would you think it's not true information? It's coming right from Purolator's internal documentation of their products. If you can't believe the filter manufacture themselves, who else are you going to believe ... someone or some source that gives you an answer you think it should be or like better?

 

[oil_film_movies]

Y'all, it's consistent with the physical media on the Boss that it would do the 4548-12 run at 99%-40microns, since it doesn't have the double-layer Fram Ultra depth filtering, yet they still want decent dirt holding performance. With only a single layer, you've probably got to keep it open enough not to clog easily.
Makes sense.

 

[Baracoa]

Concerning the PurolatorBoss with a filtration rate of 99% at 40 microns, at what percentage rate could it possibly achieve 20-25 microns? Could it possibly be at least 80% at 20 microns?