Pure One 14610 / Classic 14459 Cut Open Pics.

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Dang, this thread/media area measure has been nitpicked to death by one poster to justify the knee jerk implied conclusion, falsely so, of a media reduction in the posted PL14610.


Wow ... sour grapes. Let me recap. Both you and I have been saying for some time now that the 14610 has around 105 sq-in of media.

Then a different measurement come in from you ... a measurement that I mistakenly questioned (sorry if you took it the wrong way). I simple theorized that maybe the media area has decreased along the way for some reason - I never "concluded" that Purolator actually decreased the media area. It's not unheard of for filter manufactures to change their filter without any public notice.

I almost get this feeling it was a "disrespect to Purolator" to even question if maybe something had changed. It's nobody's "fault" if a manufacture suddenly changes something in their design ... it's not a "put down against Purolator" to question if something has changed. I don't even love Purolator that much to not question even them.

So, a mystery ensued and questions were asked to try and figure out why the media area measurement discrepancy existed. Simple as that ... with no "accusations" that anyone was right or wrong; only just trying to figure out why.

It seems some people have been taking this the wrong way ... and if I was the cause then all I can say is "sorry", so please don't take this stuff too personally. It was never meant to be a discussion to prove anyone wrong.

 

[Sayjac]

Dude, I don't need a parsed recap from you. Reading skills are not lacking, from this party at least.

Because the figure I found was different from the one posted previously, you quickly made an assumption saying your thinking was that the media had been cut down. Then I responded, that based on my visual dissection experience with the gold PL14610 (several since introduced), I was quite certain it hadn't. Then I proceeded to offer a very plausable, and now proven right on point, explanation for the difference in measure. That was quickly dismissed as extremely unlikely and/or highly improbable, even after I stated as much as unambigous fact before the pics were posted. Clearly NOT so unlikely/improbable now.

As I said, thankfully barlowc was there the confirm my pics and the accuracy. Fairly certain, that much as my observations and statements weren't, my pics alone wouldn't have been proof enough in this matter.

So, congrats on your exercise in mental masterbation paying off in figuring out your contrived mystery. Surprising that for supposedly smart guy, an alternative explanation even when clearly pointed out, never entered your mind as a very likely explanation/possibility.

Done with the discussion on the media area, lesson learned and I won't have to solve anymore contrived mysteries regarding media area. I'm certain though you'll find something more to nitpick and parse here or elsewhere to satisfy yourself. Of that, I have no doubt.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Oh well, I guess you can read into it what you want. It's kind of sad because you will not actually read and understand what I've actually said many times over ... but instead seemingly only take it as a blow to your "credibility" which is not what was intended here.

Instead of participating (without an attitude) in trying to understand the discrepancies, you took it as questioning your postings and data. Again ... it was NOT the intention from me. Some bug got up yours and it's been downhill ever since.

Guess in the end we found out the answer to the mystery, which was the sole intention of originally pointing out area measurement discrepancies from other people's measurements on the board.

I've apologized and tried to let you know it wasn't about you more than once ... so you tell me who's attitude needs a correction at this point.

 

[HTSS_TR]

From the first and second picture the filter media of L14459 looks thicker than PL14610 ?

Either one has plenty filter media, doesn't matter if both have 100+ sq-in or 90+ sq-in media both will perform well for an OCI of round 8-10k miles.

 

[Sayjac]

Perhaps because of the 459 being closer to the lens, but with the media removed the P1 media clearly felt and appeared thicker. As for OCI, each person's comfort level. The P1 took me close to one full MM cycle(6-10%), the Classic 5k/5months on an older Civic that uses some oil. At ~$3 for the P1 and ~$1.50 w/rebate for the Classic, very satisfied with the performance of both. So for me, there would be little cost benefit to extend oci, or reuse per Honda's suggestion/recommendation.

The P1 was replaced with Bosch Dist. Plus because of obtaining a few for ~$4.50, and the Classic with a Classic, for similar OCI's. Be especially interested in cutting open the BDP at the end and and seeing how it looks. The BDP is likely overkill for one standard MM oci, and a good candidate for the Honda recommendation. Not sure about doing it though.

Can't now disagree with your point about area, should only have been a point of reference, not an absolute. The interest here lie in the fact that both filter sizes can be used interchangably in many applications. And simply, that the smaller 14610 has a bit more media.

 

[sm00thpapa]

At least your end caps stayed on

 

[mongo161]

Sayjac,
Thanks for the post and analysis of the Purolator Filters. I like the Classic a little more than the P1 for the oil flow. I have some P1 filters and will use them in the future.

I look forward to your analysis and review of the Bosch D+. I also picked up a couple on the Advance Auto Discount and Rebate from Bosch. Since I usually change out the Dino oil every 6 to 7K, I'll have to run some Synthetic from the late fall...through the winter.... and into the late Spring....to get the benefit out of the synthetic oil and filter.




Originally Posted By: sayjac
Perhaps because of the 459 being closer to the lens, but with the media removed the P1 media clearly felt and appeared thicker. As for OCI, each person's comfort level. The P1 took me close to one full MM cycle(6-10%), the Classic 5k/5months on an older Civic that uses some oil. At ~$3 for the P1 and ~$1.50 w/rebate for the Classic, very satisfied with the performance of both. So for me, there would be little cost benefit to extend oci, or reuse per Honda's suggestion/recommendation.

The P1 was replaced with Bosch Dist. Plus because of obtaining a few for ~$4.50, and the Classic with a Classic, for similar OCI's. Be especially interested in cutting open the BDP at the end and and seeing how it looks. The BDP is likely overkill for one standard MM oci, and a good candidate for the Honda recommendation. Not sure about doing it though.

Can't now disagree with your point about area, should only have been a point of reference, not an absolute. The interest here lie in the fact that both filter sizes can be used interchangably in many applications. And simply, that the smaller 14610 has a bit more media.

 

[Sayjac]

Thanks Mongo,

As for the BD+ dissection, it might be a while. As mentioned, I'm seriously considering running it two full MM Honda OCI's (60% now), as Honda recommended. Please, no not changing dirty underwear jokes.

I figure the BDP could easily handle it, and more than anything else, as an experiment I would like to see and post how it looks post use.

As for the P1 flow debate, I've never seen anything written definitively or experienced anything anecdotally, that indicates the P1 doesn't flow just fine. They've seemingly worked fine in my vehicles, that's all I can go on.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: mongo161
I like the Classic a little more than the P1 for the oil flow. I have some P1 filters and will use them in the future.


PureOne filters flow very well ... probably better than most. No data on the Classic, but I doubt it flows no better to make any real difference.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451

 

[Sayjac]

Glad ZO chimed in, because I should have said I have read information posted here in the linked thread posted above that indicates, quite the contrary, that P1 flows just fine.

He's all over it though.

 

[ltslimjim]

^Well, you wonder how the fear of it's flow got started, then. Oh, no. How can a paper media filter to 99% at 20 micron? They just cram in a ball of quadruple ply toilet paper but it flows like garbage.

PS: Must be why the can feels so 'thin', it's because the innards are a roll of toilet paper!

lol...kidding!!!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
^Well, you wonder how the fear of it's flow got started, then.


Bottom line is ... real data always trumps internet folk lore.

 

[Sayjac]

Funny you should mention the P1 can thickness. During this dissection I also measured P1 can thickness several times with a digital micrometer with the texture sanded off, but not all the paint removed. The reason for leaving the paint is the thickness measurements I've seen don't remove paint.

Anyway the thickness came to 0.016", which compares favorably with daman's results posted in his thread here. At least equal to several other oil filters. I also have pics. That said, can thickness has never been an issue for me either.

 

[steve20]

did you really multiply pleat depth X number of pleats to get the length? OMG

Thanks Z06--PS I got one too--the most fun you can have after a frustrating day at the office

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: steve20
did you really multiply pleat depth X number of pleats to get the length? OMG


Actually, that's a pretty accurate way of doing it without having to carefully cut the entire element out to measure it.