Purolator Pure One - Flow Comparisons, spring?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
223
Location
S. Colo
Hi, all.

Say, The Purolator Pure One filter is frequently listed on BITOG as being one of the best oil filters. This is widespread here and while I'm new I am already developing an appreciation for BITOG member's objectivity and "give a darn" attitude. So I'm looking to be a convert. The Wix filters I've been using seem respected as a boilerplate type of filter but I'm thinking the Purolators might be better.

I'd like to switch if that is true. I'm hoping someone here can point me to some empirical test data to put to rest some rumors regarding:

1.) Is it true the Pure One flow is reduced due to so much filter media jam packed in and little/almost no space between pleats? Where can I find high speed flow comparisons between filters - both when new and when "used" or saturated with normal dirt?

It's hard to criticize a company for trying to add value by stuffing in as much high quality filter media as possible... still, did the "more is better" thing get a bit carried away or is that pure internet bunk?

Are the pleats packed so tightly that dirt holding capacity is reduced instead of increased?

2.) Does the Pure One have the "45 rpm record" flat spring instead of a coil spring? If so, does it permanently deform upon first bypass causing "forever permanent bypass" as many of the flat springs supposedly do? That is, the flat springs aren't really springs at all; just soft metal that will compress but NOT rebound?

I've cut apart quite a few filters. On this particular point, it's my observation that the flat "springs" are in fact not springs at all. Every one I've come across is butter soft and has no spring to it at all. That's why I bring that web rumor up here; I consider it a valid concern for me at least...


Well, I sure hope you all can give me some links to test data. If not, I'm still convinced enough to buy a few, run 'em and then cut them apart to develop some opinions of my own. If I do, I'll post pics.


Thank you for your time,


Larry S.
10*B
Former ASE Cert MM, Retired

1998 Buick LeSabre 3800 Gen II w/UIM/LIM fix done recently
1994 Ford F150 4x4 5.8 "BRP" (big red pig - gas guzzler)
2003 Kaw KLR650
Browning BAR MKII 338... oops, that one doesn't use motor oil - yet!


My app is a totally mild and stock street car, so it's not like it's a race car or anything. I don't need ridiculous flow rates or a filter can rated to 600 psi.
 
I though those spiralocks were retainers not springs. I have a Farbique au Japon Denso in the basement cut open that uses that type of retainer - I'll take a look.

Larry, I'm Old as dirt NIASE MM here too.
 
Hi Larry,

I cut open a PureOne PL14477 (appropriate size for my 2006 Camry).

It had ample filter media, but there was plenty of room between the pleats for oil to flow. Similarly, there was enough room between the pleats and the body of the filter to allow oil to flow.

It looked exactly like this one, except the can was coated in a yellow grippy coating.

I don't think flow rate is a problem.

As for the spring, it's remarkably beefy and doesn't seem to deform. I'm a reasonably strong person, and I had to apply a fair amount of force to open the bypass valve. If anything, I'd worry that it's sprung too tightly (but considering the rarity of bypass, I'm sure it's not a problem). Repeated pushes on it did not seem to reduce the springy ability of the spring, and it remains stiff. The bypass valve on the Toyota YZZF1 filters are quite a bit easier to open by hand.

The PureOne appears to be a well-built filter, and I wouldn't worry about using the appropriate model of PureOne in your vehicle. I'm sure it'll do the job excellently.
 
In general I question the objectivity of many here, or the rest of the net for that matter.

I have never used a Pure one, but many of the Plus or Classics. They all had likely the same 45 RPM style bypass. I never saw one that looked like it failed in use.

Too many pleats and too close to the can? Sounds like Fram hype to me.

Empirical test data? This is the best I know of, more than speculation about construction, http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/

If buy American is important to you, you might stick to Wix, not only made here, but by an American company with upper management, design, engineering, etc. all here.
 
I've also never seen a Purolator filter (or any filter) that looked like the bypass had failed permanently open. So I don't think that's a reasonable concern. The pleats are many, but I don't think that's a problem.

The Wix are really good, I'm surprised you'd move away from them.

Labman, you make a bold assumption that when Bosch bought Purolator that they fired all the US based upper management, design, engineering, etc. Are you certain that the company doesn't operate autonomously from Bosch, with no real change besides the owner? Because, pardon my directness, but you are quite vocal about them being a foreign entity. But in actuality, we're not sure if they are a foreign company, or simply a foreign owned company.
 
Originally Posted By: 10bears

I'd like to switch if that is true. I'm hoping someone here can point me to some empirical test data to put to rest some rumors regarding:

1.) Is it true the Pure One flow is reduced due to so much filter media jam packed in and little/almost no space between pleats? Where can I find high speed flow comparisons between filters - both when new and when "used" or saturated with normal dirt?


No ... the PureONE (of today) is NOT restrictive. You want real data ... this this.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=116457&Number=1619451

It's funny how rumors get started. Some garage testing yahoo probably saw all the media packed into a PureONE and just automatically thought it must make it restrictive. You need REAL MEASURED test data to know reality in this department.

Originally Posted By: 10bears
2.) Does the Pure One have the "45 rpm record" flat spring instead of a coil spring? If so, does it permanently deform upon first bypass causing "forever permanent bypass" as many of the flat springs supposedly do? That is, the flat springs aren't really springs at all; just soft metal that will compress but NOT rebound?


Not ALL Purolator's use the flat "45 record adapter" spring design. Some have the 45 spring, some have coil springs ... depends on the filter part number. The 45 spring does bounce back ... it's not a "one time use" spring. Nothing to worry about IMO. The ones I've cut open with the 45 spring seem to work fine to me.
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb

Labman, you make a bold assumption that when Bosch bought Purolator that they fired all the US based upper management, design, engineering, etc.


He makes a lot of assumptions that aren't accurate ...
wink.gif
 
The only benefit one could see would be better filtration with the yellow P1,both are great and will perform well.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I though those spiralocks were retainers not springs. I have a Farbique au Japon Denso in the basement cut open that uses that type of retainer - I'll take a look.

Larry, I'm Old as dirt NIASE MM here too.


ArcoG, Thank you for your input. I go around thinking I'm not really that old but these computer cars set me straight on that every now and again!

Larry
 
Originally Posted By: heypete
Hi Larry,

I cut open a PureOne PL14477 (appropriate size for my 2006 Camry).

It had ample filter media, but there was plenty of room between the pleats for oil to flow. Similarly, there was enough room between the pleats and the body of the filter to allow oil to flow.

It looked exactly like this one, except the can was coated in a yellow grippy coating.

I don't think flow rate is a problem.

As for the spring, it's remarkably beefy and doesn't seem to deform. I'm a reasonably strong person, and I had to apply a fair amount of force to open the bypass valve. If anything, I'd worry that it's sprung too tightly (but considering the rarity of bypass, I'm sure it's not a problem). Repeated pushes on it did not seem to reduce the springy ability of the spring, and it remains stiff. The bypass valve on the Toyota YZZF1 filters are quite a bit easier to open by hand.

The PureOne appears to be a well-built filter, and I wouldn't worry about using the appropriate model of PureOne in your vehicle. I'm sure it'll do the job excellently.


Pete, Thank you for your valuable input. That's exactly the kind of observations I was hoping for!

Larry S.
 
Originally Posted By: labman
In general I question the objectivity of many here, or the rest of the net for that matter.

I have never used a Pure one, but many of the Plus or Classics. They all had likely the same 45 RPM style bypass. I never saw one that looked like it failed in use.

Too many pleats and too close to the can? Sounds like Fram hype to me.

Empirical test data? This is the best I know of, more than speculation about construction, http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/

If buy American is important to you, you might stick to Wix, not only made here, but by an American company with upper management, design, engineering, etc. all here.


Labman, thank you very much for the link! That's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for. I will read it in detail.

Actually, it's been about 2 years since I did my web research and the site that thought Purolator was too tightly packed absolutely hated Fram. Similar non-empirical reasons just as you mentioned.

See other posts above; sounds like if Pure One was ever packed too tightly, it isn't any more.

Thank you very much for the link and for your input.

Larry
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb
I've also never seen a Purolator filter (or any filter) that looked like the bypass had failed permanently open. So I don't think that's a reasonable concern. The pleats are many, but I don't think that's a problem.

The Wix are really good, I'm surprised you'd move away from them.

Labman, you make a bold assumption that when Bosch bought Purolator that they fired all the US based upper management, design, engineering, etc. Are you certain that the company doesn't operate autonomously from Bosch, with no real change besides the owner? Because, pardon my directness, but you are quite vocal about them being a foreign entity. But in actuality, we're not sure if they are a foreign company, or simply a foreign owned company.


bepperb,

Thank you for your valued input. I think you are right.

Larry
 
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: 10bears

I'd like to switch if that is true. I'm hoping someone here can point me to some empirical test data to put to rest some rumors regarding:

1.) Is it true the Pure One flow is reduced due to so much filter media jam packed in and little/almost no space between pleats? Where can I find high speed flow comparisons between filters - both when new and when "used" or saturated with normal dirt?


No ... the PureONE (of today) is NOT restrictive. You want real data ... this this.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=116457&Number=1619451

It's funny how rumors get started. Some garage testing yahoo probably saw all the media packed into a PureONE and just automatically thought it must make it restrictive. You need REAL MEASURED test data to know reality in this department.

Originally Posted By: 10bears
2.) Does the Pure One have the "45 rpm record" flat spring instead of a coil spring? If so, does it permanently deform upon first bypass causing "forever permanent bypass" as many of the flat springs supposedly do? That is, the flat springs aren't really springs at all; just soft metal that will compress but NOT rebound?


Not ALL Purolator's use the flat "45 record adapter" spring design. Some have the 45 spring, some have coil springs ... depends on the filter part number. The 45 spring does bounce back ... it's not a "one time use" spring. Nothing to worry about IMO. The ones I've cut open with the 45 spring seem to work fine to me.


SuperBusa,

Thank you very much for your input and for the link. I will follow the linked thread and read it all.

Much appreciated,

Larry
 
Originally Posted By: labman
In general I question the objectivity of many here, or the rest of the net for that matter.

I have never used a Pure one, but many of the Plus or Classics. They all had likely the same 45 RPM style bypass. I never saw one that looked like it failed in use.

Too many pleats and too close to the can? Sounds like Fram hype to me.

Empirical test data? This is the best I know of, more than speculation about construction, http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/

If buy American is important to you, you might stick to Wix, not only made here, but by an American company with upper management, design, engineering, etc. all here.



Labman,

I found the linked info to be a fascinating and illuminating approach to filter testing. I suspected balance could be key...

The best first pass filtration may not have the best cold flow, etc.

Layperson/hack mechanic idea: Maybe gravitate towards the best first pass filtration, but use the long filter substitute for the given vehicle to help with cold flow... or it could be splitting hairs. As the guy says, any of these tested will do an excellent job!

Larry
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb
I've also never seen a Purolator filter (or any filter) that looked like the bypass had failed permanently open. So I don't think that's a reasonable concern. The pleats are many, but I don't think that's a problem.

The Wix are really good, I'm surprised you'd move away from them.

Labman, you make a bold assumption that when Bosch bought Purolator that they fired all the US based upper management, design, engineering, etc. Are you certain that the company doesn't operate autonomously from Bosch, with no real change besides the owner? Because, pardon my directness, but you are quite vocal about them being a foreign entity. But in actuality, we're not sure if they are a foreign company, or simply a foreign owned company.


I didn't say they weren't. All I said was that Wix is here. Please confine your criticism to what I said.
 
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: 10bears

I'd like to switch if that is true. I'm hoping someone here can point me to some empirical test data to put to rest some rumors regarding:

1.) Is it true the Pure One flow is reduced due to so much filter media jam packed in and little/almost no space between pleats? Where can I find high speed flow comparisons between filters - both when new and when "used" or saturated with normal dirt?


No ... the PureONE (of today) is NOT restrictive. You want real data ... this this.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=116457&Number=1619451

It's funny how rumors get started. Some garage testing yahoo probably saw all the media packed into a PureONE and just automatically thought it must make it restrictive. You need REAL MEASURED test data to know reality in this department.

Originally Posted By: 10bears
2.) Does the Pure One have the "45 rpm record" flat spring instead of a coil spring? If so, does it permanently deform upon first bypass causing "forever permanent bypass" as many of the flat springs supposedly do? That is, the flat springs aren't really springs at all; just soft metal that will compress but NOT rebound?


Not ALL Purolator's use the flat "45 record adapter" spring design. Some have the 45 spring, some have coil springs ... depends on the filter part number. The 45 spring does bounce back ... it's not a "one time use" spring. Nothing to worry about IMO. The ones I've cut open with the 45 spring seem to work fine to me.


SuperBusa,

I found your linked info to be extremely valuable!

Purolator is apparently an incredibly responsive and motivated company! I'm flabbergasted by the effort they put into answering your questions!

The pressure delta at the required flow rate shows that it's nowhere near bypassing. Just as it should be. All the while doing so with some of the best filtration available (to my limited knowledge).


I've just put up a separate thread regarding observed PSI pressure differences between long and short oil filters. I saw some differences there, but that was Wix filtration media. Probably nothing wrong with it, but certainly a difference. I might try the same comparison with Purolator Pure One's filters - long versus short (Lesabre style vs Chevy Blazer style).

Not that this will prove much.

I think you've clinched it for me - I'm going to Pure One. I'll probably just use the longer version filter due to my old timer's "more is better" mentality.


I sure do appreciate all the excellent info from all you guys at BITOG!


Larry S.
 
PureOne....good choice.

Considering the price (mid-range...about $6/less on Amazon) and reading at the various info on other sites, I feel Purolator PureOne gives the "best bang for the buck". I've been using them for several years now.

For those of you who want to save some money... where PureOnes would cost less than the real cheapos out there;

Keep checking the Pureolator website (pureoil.com) every month or so. Click 'Promotions'. Usually around spring or early summer, they have a promotion for a $2 rebate on each PureOne purchased.

At that time order six (or more)from Amazon (Total cost $28.44 for 6 & free shipping). Send in the mail-in rebate form which would be $12 for six....and your total cost would be 16.44....or 2.74 per filter.

This is a great way to get a top-tier filter for less than $3.
______________________________________________________
2003 Ford Focus SE 2.3L / 82K
Valvoline MaxLife Syn 5w30 / OCI 7000 +/-
Purolator PureOne PL10241
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Oregoonian
PureOne....good choice.

Considering the price (mid-range...about $6/less on Amazon) and reading at the various info on other sites, I feel Purolator PureOne gives the "best bang for the buck". I've been using them for several years now.

For those of you who want to save some money... where PureOnes would cost less than the real cheapos out there;

Keep checking the Pureolator website (pureoil.com) every month or so. Click 'Promotions'. Usually around spring or early summer, they have a promotion for a $2 rebate on each PureOne purchased.

At that time order six (or more)from Amazon (Total cost $28.44 for 6 & free shipping). Send in the mail-in rebate form which would be $12 for six....and your total cost would be 16.44....or 2.74 per filter.

This is a great way to get a top-tier filter for less than $3.
______________________________________________________
2003 Ford Focus SE 2.3L / 82K
Valvoline MaxLife Syn 5w30 / OCI 7000 +/-
Purolator PureOne PL10241


Oregoonian,

Thank you for the suggestion! I live out in the sticks and so I buy a lot from Amazon.

I'll watch for the deal you mention... get a 6 pack for the Buford and another for the "Big Red Pig" (F150 351 4x4 impossibly thirsty gas guzzler)

LS

10*B
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top