Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Really? And this conclusion was arrived at through extensive research I presume. FYI, Wally Canada oil filter customers had no choice before, it was all Fram. So now they have Purolator instead of Fram, a different supplier, what's the problem? And FYI, majority Classic's have a better efficiency rating than the current orange can spec, 97.5% @ 20 um vs 95% > 20um.
BTW - the few Purolators classics that I've purchased have all said 97.5% at 40 um on the box, which is hardly efficient at all. You keep restating this statistic, yet I've failed to see any documentation that this spec applies to all of their part numbers.
As I said the "majority" Classic's have a better efficiency rating than the current orange can spec, which is an accurate statement as only the four smallest Purolator filters are rated at 40um, but thanks for the tip. While 'you' may dispute Purolator's 20um spec for the remainder of it's filters, you've offered no proof to the contrary. Waiting. Is there any proof that all Fram applications are the same as the spec on the box for each type filter?
And while the 4 smallest may spec at 40um my bet is even at 97.5% for the Classic and 99.9% for the P1, that would still make them much more efficienct than the A-02 OEM which is ~65% at 20um. So much for the theory of OEM products being superior to aftermarket in all cases.
There's also nothing to say that at 97.5 and 99.8 at 40um they couldn't be in the low to mid 90% at 20 um. Then again, if Purolator spec'd their filters similar to Fram they could say ALL Classics and P1's are 97.5 and 99.9% > 20um respectively and not be inaccurate. Just saying.
Lastly, recently checked Classic L14610 and it's still uses the same gasket it and all similar Purolator made fors have always used, it's a standard flat gasket type, not what most would describe as an "o-ring". Fwiw, only seen one poster describe that gasket as such, but even so I've seen no complaints of leaks here on properly installed filters.