So my filter stamped F04C12B1 would be from April 12, 2011? This assumes the letter C follows in a logical progression.
It is a PL20195, which is the PureOne version of the Fram PH3600.
Question About Purolator Quality
- Thread starter Cristobal
- Start date
- Status
So my filter stamped F04C12B1 would be from April 12, 2011? This assumes the letter C follows in a logical progression.
It is a PL20195, which is the PureOne version of the Fram PH3600.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Some models have the problem, some don't. Classics and P1. I've seen production as recent as March 2014 still having the problem.
March 2014 ... that's last month. Who has bought, used and cut-open a Purolator made in March 2014 already and reported it here? Do you mean March 2013?
I'm saying I observed the problem in new stock, looking through the center tube perforations. Sometimes it's clear, sometimes it is not. In my case, 4 of 5 filters sitting on a store shelf clearly had large voiding (improper pleating). It was quite visible through the holes, on an L14459 Classic.
To back-up your theory that you can look down the center tube holes at the media spacing and determine if the spacing bad or not, why not take a couple of the worse ones you see, cut them open and then see what the pleats really look like.
It's really not that difficult. Sometimes the perforation alignments make such an inspection inconclusive, other times it is clear that the amount of gapping is consistent with the amounts found in failed filters. It's not something I could prove on the internet anyway. People can go see it for themselves.
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Some models have the problem, some don't. Classics and P1. I've seen production as recent as March 2014 still having the problem.
March 2014 ... that's last month. Who has bought, used and cut-open a Purolator made in March 2014 already and reported it here? Do you mean March 2013?
I'm saying I observed the problem in new stock, looking through the center tube perforations. Sometimes it's clear, sometimes it is not. In my case, 4 of 5 filters sitting on a store shelf clearly had large voiding (improper pleating). It was quite visible through the holes, on an L14459 Classic.
To back-up your theory that you can look down the center tube holes at the media spacing and determine if the spacing bad or not, why not take a couple of the worse ones you see, cut them open and then see what the pleats really look like.
It's really not that difficult. Sometimes the perforation alignments make such an inspection inconclusive, other times it is clear that the amount of gapping is consistent with the amounts found in failed filters. It's not something I could prove on the internet anyway. People can go see it for themselves.
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
To back-up your theory that you can look down the center tube holes at the media spacing and determine if the spacing bad or not, why not take a couple of the worse ones you see, cut them open and then see what the pleats really look like.
It's really not that difficult. Sometimes the perforation alignments make such an inspection inconclusive, other times it is clear that the amount of gapping is consistent with the amounts found in failed filters. It's not something I could prove on the internet anyway. People can go see it for themselves.
Take photos of what you see down the center hole, then cut open the filter and take photos of what those pleats actually look like at the same locations that you identified as suspect. See if there is a true correlation between what's seen by looking down the center tube and what the pleats really are in that location. Can't be that hard, just have to buy and sacrifice a few new oil filters.
Go to the store and pick out the worse 2 or 3 Classics you can find, then do the test to correlate your theory.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
To back-up your theory that you can look down the center tube holes at the media spacing and determine if the spacing bad or not, why not take a couple of the worse ones you see, cut them open and then see what the pleats really look like.
It's really not that difficult. Sometimes the perforation alignments make such an inspection inconclusive, other times it is clear that the amount of gapping is consistent with the amounts found in failed filters. It's not something I could prove on the internet anyway. People can go see it for themselves.
Take photos of what you see down the center hole, then cut open the filter and take photos of what those pleats actually look like at the same locations that you identified as suspect. See if there is a true correlation between what's seen by looking down the center tube and what the pleats really are in that location. Can't be that hard, just have to buy and sacrifice a few new oil filters.
Go to the store and pick out the worse 2 or 3 Classics you can find, then do the test to correlate your theory.
Well, i wouldnt waste my money and time on something anyone can see easily for themselves at no monetary cost. Really, cutting them open isnt even necessary, as you can prove for yourself. Besides, doubters would just say I substituted a flawed filter after the fact - wouldnt prove anything.
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Well, i wouldnt waste my money and time on something anyone can see easily for themselves at no monetary cost. Really, cutting them open isnt even necessary, as you can prove for yourself. Besides, doubters would just say I substituted a flawed filter after the fact - wouldnt prove anything.
Without cutting the filter open to see what the pleats really look like in the "suspect area" based on looking down the center tube, then you have no proof at all that your methodology is sound.
Like I've said a few times in various threads, I think the pleat V-spacing is a bigger factor than pleat spacing between the pleats.
Well, i wouldnt waste my money and time on something anyone can see easily for themselves at no monetary cost. Really, cutting them open isnt even necessary, as you can prove for yourself. Besides, doubters would just say I substituted a flawed filter after the fact - wouldnt prove anything.
Without cutting the filter open to see what the pleats really look like in the "suspect area" based on looking down the center tube, then you have no proof at all that your methodology is sound.
Like I've said a few times in various threads, I think the pleat V-spacing is a bigger factor than pleat spacing between the pleats.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Well, i wouldnt waste my money and time on something anyone can see easily for themselves at no monetary cost. Really, cutting them open isnt even necessary, as you can prove for yourself. Besides, doubters would just say I substituted a flawed filter after the fact - wouldnt prove anything.
Without cutting the filter open to see what the pleats really look like in the "suspect area" based on looking down the center tube, then you have no proof at all that your methodology is sound.
Like I've said a few times in various threads, I think the pleat V-spacing is a bigger factor than pleat spacing between pleats.
We are talking about the same thing - the V shape, and more specifically the amount of void between pleats on the down-stream side of the media. There is no need to "proof out" a methodology here, although of course ideally cutting one open could be helpful. It is not necessary in this case. I can often identify the sectional configuration of the pleating in question, through the perforations, most of the time, depending on perforation hole shape and other factors of course. Ideally, all interior folds should be butted to each other, but they can plainly be seen to not be butted in some cases, and the specific separation distance is apparent. I'm done explaining this simple fact. It is self evident. Go try it for yourself.
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Well, i wouldnt waste my money and time on something anyone can see easily for themselves at no monetary cost. Really, cutting them open isnt even necessary, as you can prove for yourself. Besides, doubters would just say I substituted a flawed filter after the fact - wouldnt prove anything.
Without cutting the filter open to see what the pleats really look like in the "suspect area" based on looking down the center tube, then you have no proof at all that your methodology is sound.
Like I've said a few times in various threads, I think the pleat V-spacing is a bigger factor than pleat spacing between pleats.
We are talking about the same thing - the V shape, and more specifically the amount of void between pleats on the down-stream side of the media. There is no need to "proof out" a methodology here, although of course ideally cutting one open could be helpful. It is not necessary in this case. I can often identify the sectional configuration of the pleating in question, through the perforations, most of the time, depending on perforation hole shape and other factors of course. Ideally, all interior folds should be butted to each other, but they can plainly be seen to not be butted in some cases, and the specific separation distance is apparent. I'm done explaining this simple fact. It is self evident. Go try it for yourself.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Well, i wouldnt waste my money and time on something anyone can see easily for themselves at no monetary cost. Really, cutting them open isnt even necessary, as you can prove for yourself. Besides, doubters would just say I substituted a flawed filter after the fact - wouldnt prove anything.
Without cutting the filter open to see what the pleats really look like in the "suspect area" based on looking down the center tube, then you have no proof at all that your methodology is sound.
Like I've said a few times in various threads, I think the pleat V-spacing is a bigger factor than pleat spacing between pleats.
We are talking about the same thing - the V shape, and more specifically the amount of void between pleats on the down-stream side of the media. There is no need to "proof out" a methodology here, although of course ideally cutting one open could be helpful. It is not necessary in this case. I can often identify the sectional configuration of the pleating in question, through the perforations, most of the time, depending on perforation hole shape and other factors of course. Ideally, all interior folds should be butted to each other, but they can plainly be seen to not be butted in some cases, and the specific separation distance is apparent. I'm done explaining this simple fact. It is self evident. Go try it for yourself.
If it's not "proofed out" by cutting some new filters open, then there is no real proof it's a valid method to determine possible pleat problems. It's just a speculative theory that it might be way to look for suspect filters.
Of course anyone would like to see all the pleat edges all nice and packed tight against each other around the center tube, but if there a a small gap or two doesn't mean the pleats are overly spaced on the can side. And the only real way to verify that is to cut some open to see what really going on inside based on what can be seen down the center tube.
You can get 3 Classics for a little over $10 at Walmart. Maybe we can all chip in a nickle and raise the cash for your science project.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Well, i wouldnt waste my money and time on something anyone can see easily for themselves at no monetary cost. Really, cutting them open isnt even necessary, as you can prove for yourself. Besides, doubters would just say I substituted a flawed filter after the fact - wouldnt prove anything.
Without cutting the filter open to see what the pleats really look like in the "suspect area" based on looking down the center tube, then you have no proof at all that your methodology is sound.
Like I've said a few times in various threads, I think the pleat V-spacing is a bigger factor than pleat spacing between pleats.
We are talking about the same thing - the V shape, and more specifically the amount of void between pleats on the down-stream side of the media. There is no need to "proof out" a methodology here, although of course ideally cutting one open could be helpful. It is not necessary in this case. I can often identify the sectional configuration of the pleating in question, through the perforations, most of the time, depending on perforation hole shape and other factors of course. Ideally, all interior folds should be butted to each other, but they can plainly be seen to not be butted in some cases, and the specific separation distance is apparent. I'm done explaining this simple fact. It is self evident. Go try it for yourself.
If it's not "proofed out" by cutting some new filters open, then there is no real proof it's a valid method to determine possible pleat problems. It's just a speculative theory that it might be way to look for suspect filters.
Of course anyone would like to see all the pleat edges all nice and packed tight against each other around the center tube, but if there a a small gap or two doesn't mean the pleats are overly spaced on the can side. And the only real way to verify that is to cut some open to see what really going on inside based on what can be seen down the center tube.
You can get 3 Classics for a little over $10 at Walmart. Maybe we can all chip in a nickle and raise the cash for your science project.
I am not saying it is a full proof way to make sure you are installing a good filter. Maybe that's what youre hung up on? I'm saying flaws can easily be seen through the center tube, in many cases. In such a case, one would be wise to reject the filter, and probably every filter with the same production stamp. And we already know that having a large "V" spread only dramatically increases failure risk, it does not guarantee it.
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
I am not saying it is a full proof way to make sure you are installing a good filter.
I didn't elude to saying you think it's a fool proof way. We don't really know how valid of an indication it really is without more analysis of the method by cutting suspect filters open and associating seen pleat spaces through the center tube with actual pleat spacing inside the can. That's all I'm saying.
I agree if anyone is worried about pleat spacing, then the only way they might get some kind of indication would be to use your method. But it's not going to guarantee that the pleats won't actually be spaced out inside.
The next best way is to obtain the information would be with X-ray vision.
I am not saying it is a full proof way to make sure you are installing a good filter.
I didn't elude to saying you think it's a fool proof way. We don't really know how valid of an indication it really is without more analysis of the method by cutting suspect filters open and associating seen pleat spaces through the center tube with actual pleat spacing inside the can. That's all I'm saying.
I agree if anyone is worried about pleat spacing, then the only way they might get some kind of indication would be to use your method. But it's not going to guarantee that the pleats won't actually be spaced out inside.
The next best way is to obtain the information would be with X-ray vision.
xray vision would work.
Yes, not seeing gaps will not guarantee the filter is safe. Seeing a gap in one or several however, will be a good indicator of a likely failure, and a good indicator that all models or all models of similar production run are prone to failure.
As the center tube perforations are generally placed randomly relative to the seam, the probability of finding several flawed pieces, by this visual inspection method, in a production batch, is very high, if the flaws do in fact exist. At that point I would reject the batch. Not finding flaws would be a good sign, but not a conclusive indication that they will not fail.
Yes, not seeing gaps will not guarantee the filter is safe. Seeing a gap in one or several however, will be a good indicator of a likely failure, and a good indicator that all models or all models of similar production run are prone to failure.
As the center tube perforations are generally placed randomly relative to the seam, the probability of finding several flawed pieces, by this visual inspection method, in a production batch, is very high, if the flaws do in fact exist. At that point I would reject the batch. Not finding flaws would be a good sign, but not a conclusive indication that they will not fail.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TriboGeek
Seeing a gap in one or several however, will be a good indicator of a likely failure, and a good indicator that all models or all models of similar production run are prone to failure.
Hard to say without cutting one open to see what the pleats really look like based on suspicious center tube side pleat spacing. Dog chasing it's tail on this one.
Seeing a gap in one or several however, will be a good indicator of a likely failure, and a good indicator that all models or all models of similar production run are prone to failure.
Hard to say without cutting one open to see what the pleats really look like based on suspicious center tube side pleat spacing. Dog chasing it's tail on this one.
Yeah it is pretty simple. A theory can't be proven without the appropriate data to correlate. Aren't you just a little curious to know what the pleats really look like inside based on the little you can see through the center tube? You have no clue what's really inside to correlate that with what you see through the center tube without cutting the filter open and looking. Unless of course you do have X-ray vision.
Yes, we will agree to disagree on this one.
Yes, we will agree to disagree on this one.
Say you know a box had an animal in it, either a bird or a dog. The animal is removed. Then you see feathers in the box. You don't need to find the bird to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bird was in the box.
Or heck, make it even simpler. Looking at the outside of a cardboard box pretty much tells you what you need to know about the inside of the cardboard box
Gosh. This place is too much.
Or heck, make it even simpler. Looking at the outside of a cardboard box pretty much tells you what you need to know about the inside of the cardboard box
Gosh. This place is too much.
Last edited:
You don't need to explain it to me; but those analogies you gave are frankly ridiculous. If you look at the outside of box you have no idea what's inside the box unless you open it up and look inside. Sound familiar?
There's really no need to beat the dead horse.
There's really no need to beat the dead horse.
Purolator is US made and professionals and DIY-rs have depended on Purolator every since..... well that's what was said on the Purolator radio commercial.
I'm okay most times with their air filters, but will continue to use other oil filters.
I'm okay most times with their air filters, but will continue to use other oil filters.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
You don't need to explain it to me; but those analogies you gave are frankly ridiculous. If you look at the outside of box you have no idea what's inside the box unless you open it up and look inside. Sound familiar?
There's really no need to beat the dead horse.
Yea. Changing subjects, and no offense, but I'm beginning to understand Wilhelm_D's frustrations with you. You seem either completely unable to grasp a simple concept, or completely bent on defending a mistaken statement to the end.
You don't need to explain it to me; but those analogies you gave are frankly ridiculous. If you look at the outside of box you have no idea what's inside the box unless you open it up and look inside. Sound familiar?
There's really no need to beat the dead horse.
Yea. Changing subjects, and no offense, but I'm beginning to understand Wilhelm_D's frustrations with you. You seem either completely unable to grasp a simple concept, or completely bent on defending a mistaken statement to the end.
- Status
Similar threads
