Purolator PL14670

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: jk_636


Calm down Futerdoc. We dont need a repeat of all your old Purolator photos. You got brought up because you consistently make the "It isnt new production so it doesn't count" excuse when one of my filters shows up tear free. This one is new production, thus now that argument has been debunked!

Is it just me, or does it just really seem that some in here are having a really hard time coping with the fact that this filter is AOK?

It is just a filter. Maybe in the future there will be another reported "tear" that you can jump all over!

Oh, the [censored] is strong with this thread. My "old" stock is still only 15-18 or so months old... and I am more than sure that many of the same failing filters are out there. Actually, the difference between one of my filters and yours is only a couple of months. A single filter (which was not a suspect model number - as it is a non-metal seem) does not debunk that Purolator has a tearing problem with a significant likelihood of that product remaining on the shelf nor does it confirm that Purolator has corrected the issue. If you had a few 14610 10241 or 14459 operated for OEM spec-ed OCI (ie 5,000, 7,500, or 15,000-Honda 2X intervals) then you might have a case.

You only ran this filter for 50% of the potential miles spec-ed by your owners manual. Considering you were using Syn and not Conv, the 3,000mi interval in this application (rotation B), you might as well be claiming "victory" at halftime. It is "ok" but nothing to glorify Purolator about solving their issues (because they have not). It is a $7 filter with 3,000 miles (we should almost NEVER see a failure at this interval... but we do). There was one picture I posted of a $3 filter with 3X miles looking in a lot better shape than your filter. Considering the amount of pleat deformation at 3K miles and Purolator's brittle media, you could have had a tear at 4K... but I guess we will know know that...

 

[FutureDoc]

Show us a clear image of the pleats next to the seams. The photo above is to dark to judge the condition of the media. Particularly I would like to see the condition of the pleat were it has moved the most (bottom left of the image)

 

[jk_636]

First off "doc" this was conventional Mobil 5000 and some other mixed oils to make up for the sixth quart I was short. The oil that was pulled out was replaced with synthetic. Maybe that is where the confusion came in.

Second, you are the one who has consistently brought up the age or date of filters in question, thus I thought you would be interested to see one that was new production.

Now you are saying it doesn't apply because it wasn't run to Hondas specs and it wasn't a crimped filter but a glued one so it doesn't count? Sounds like someone is busy grasping at straws eh?

And finally, I can't show you another photo. Like almost everyone else here, I dissected this filter, photographed it with the camera on my cell phone and then tossed it. I can assure you that the media was in no way "brittle" and I ensured this by grasping the pleats and moving them back and forth to see if they tore. Wouldn't you know it, everything was just fine.

Don't take it personally, I just thought you would find this interesting. New production, no tears, and though it was only a 3k mile interval, it was severe service and many here have told me that these filters do in fact fail at or before the 3k mile mark so this should have fit right into your wheelhouse. I'm not calling victory at halftime, I'm here to play the whole game.

 

[jk_636]

On a side note, who is the one keeping the filter chart and is it still going?

 

[FutureDoc]

OK, "jk"

You have had M1 in your sig for a while and considering the "or" with filter choice, you can see the issue.

Quote:
2006 Dodge Ram 1500 4.7 [Mobil 1 0w30+ Purolator synthetic or P1]


Secondly, the age is important as the problem began in a certain window and is more common for specific filters. You can't post per-problem date filters and say there is no-issues. Post-problem begin date filters are better but one filter model without as bad of history as other filters does not absolve the issue especially as we have had recent filters posted. The "bar" is higher to say everything is fine (needs confirmation beyond a blind fanboy). Actually, your adamant defense of the product hurts your claims. If it was Zee, it would have more impact.

Next, Purolator has been spec-ing filters to be operated at OEM interval specs. So your 4.7 engine has a 6,000mi interval for normal and then a shorter severe rotation (which it seems like your use might not meet as it has not been detailed appropriately). Considering that M5K is a 5,000 mile oil, you could have done it for that interval as it would be in your owners manual. Running 3,000mi in a 6,000 OEM rec in a filter that is not a problem model is the "straw-grasp". Not 100% of opened filters have failed but way to many have failed. You have claimed to have found a single black crow and that somehow disproves the existence of white doves.... oooooook.

I know you are playing a new game... deflating the mileage. I can show failed filters at 3K and that is a HUGE problem. Showing a filter not failing is not a "success"... it is expected at a very low bar. Bend the odds in your favor and then claim "success".

As far as the photo, yeah, you did not address the problem area.
Quote:
Wouldn't you know it...

Yeah, I would not know it. I can't see the area in question.

 

[cptbarkey]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

So, push your filter another 10 miles and it could look like mine. The trick is that torn filters are kinda like blond/brunette people. Just because you happen do be a brunette does not dis-prove the existence of blonds. Heck, more untorn filters than torn filters could exist but considering that dozens upon dozens have been reported by a small subset of a population suggest that the problem is not minor, but rather staggering.


and there is your problem my friend, those reports were biased, analyzed by amateurs, without merit, and obviously agenda driven. i liken it to turning on foxnews for a few minutes just to reassure myself that they are still spewing chaff. great filter by the way jk, continue to use purolators with confidence.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
OK, "jk"

You have had M1 in your sig for a while and considering the "or" with filter choice, you can see the issue.

Quote:
2006 Dodge Ram 1500 4.7 [Mobil 1 0w30+ Purolator synthetic or P1]


Secondly, the age is important as the problem began in a certain window and is more common for specific filters. You can't post per-problem date filters and say there is no-issues. Post-problem begin date filters are better but one filter model without as bad of history as other filters does not absolve the issue especially as we have had recent filters posted. The "bar" is higher to say everything is fine (needs confirmation beyond a blind fanboy). Actually, your adamant defense of the product hurts your claims. If it was Zee, it would have more impact.

Next, Purolator has been spec-ing filters to be operated at OEM interval specs. So your 4.7 engine has a 6,000mi interval for normal and then a shorter severe rotation (which it seems like your use might not meet as it has not been detailed appropriately). Considering that M5K is a 5,000 mile oil, you could have done it for that interval as it would be in your owners manual. Running 3,000mi in a 6,000 OEM rec in a filter that is not a problem model is the "straw-grasp". Not 100% of opened filters have failed but way to many have failed. You have claimed to have found a single black crow and that somehow disproves the existence of white doves.... oooooook.

I know you are playing a new game... deflating the mileage. I can show failed filters at 3K and that is a HUGE problem. Showing a filter not failing is not a "success"... it is expected at a very low bar. Bend the odds in your favor and then claim "success".

As far as the photo, yeah, you did not address the problem area.
Quote:
Wouldn't you know it...

Yeah, I would not know it. I can't see the area in question.


How does the fact that I use different filters present a problem for you? Do you only use one type of filter everytime? Oh wait..let me guess...the Fram Ultra I assume?

You are the one who constantly brings up the date codes. I have posted filters that were manufactured anywhere from the early 2010s to present. None of which failed. You may have to find another variable to blame failures on, as the date of manufacture is apparently not as critical as once thought.

Oh and my defense of the product hurts my claims? Im nothing but a fanboy? It would be better received (by you) if it came from someone else who fervently bashes the brand? Nothing against Zee but it sounds like it is getting piled high and deep in here...

So using a filter for 3k miles is a game? Come on now, this is getting ridiculous (almost as ridiculous as critiquing my photography skills)

. Look back through my post history, I have posted filters used for anywhere between 3-7k mile OCIs. Nothing has changed and no mileage has been deflated. It is no secret that I dont believe in extended OCIs. In this case, the motor was run harder than normal, in austere environments, so I changed the oil at a sooner interval. Im not sure why this presents a problem for you. Its nothing personal, just an oil filter.

 

[FutureDoc]

Fram? No. From about 1998-2014 it was Purolator or OEM (occasionally Bosch if it was on a good sale). Now (if you bother to look at my sig, WIX). I don't bash the brand, just the product which is only topped by the lack in customer service.

The 2010 vintage was fine, problems started to occur en mass in 2012/2013.

If you say "no tear" post a picture where we can see the pleats in question. You images are too dark at the seam pleats to tell. There is reason why I over-brighten this photo... so you can see the tear

Go ahead, please show me your "history" of 2010 to present of purolator tears. Oh wait, jk_636 does not exist past 8/14. ooops.

Nothing personal... just a poor product

 

[jk_636]

Read a little closer. The filters I have posted have been manufactured from the 2010s to present.

You are just looking for anything you can find in an attempt to discredit myself and these filters.

I have no way of brightening anything up. The filter is gone.

You are just going to have to get over the fact that no matter how much light is present, what year it was made, how long it was run or what day of the summer solstice we are in, this filter didn't tear. Bottom line, end of story. And in a few months, when I post another Purolator filter that assuredly has not torn, we will go through the same nonsense all over again.

I post these photos to show people, both members and visitors, that Purolator still makes a fine filter; and that if you ignore all the paranoia you to can have pure oil now and pure oil later.

Many offer opinions and constant derogatory remarks, I try to offer objective reasoning with photographic proof to validate it.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Fram? No. From about 1998-2014 it was Purolator or OEM (occasionally Bosch if it was on a good sale). Now (if you bother to look at my sig, WIX). I don't bash the brand, just the product which is only topped by the lack in customer service.

The 2010 vintage was fine, problems started to occur en mass in 2012/2013.

If you say "no tear" post a picture where we can see the pleats in question. You images are too dark at the seam pleats to tell. There is reason why I over-brighten this photo... so you can see the tear

Go ahead, please show me your "history" of 2010 to present of purolator tears. Oh wait, jk_636 does not exist past 8/14. ooops.

Nothing personal... just a poor product

What is in that bowl on the upper right side up the last pic??

 

[circuitsmith]

Nice clear photography jk.
Your photos don't look too dark to me, I'm using a carefully adjusted monitor for photo & video editing.

 

[jk_636]

Thank you. When I transferred them to my computer for upload they looked just fine. i don't know how many megapixels the camera on this IPhone 4s has but it takes pretty good photos. I did use the color enrichment feature before I transferred them. It just makes the photos a little sharper.

 

[Tony10s]

Nice to see .... thanks for cutting the filter open and posting the pics for us to see.

 

[skaughtz]

Has anyone played with the Purolator synthetic filters? Any reviews?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
When I say that I dont understand where they are coming from, it means I dont know why they occasionally tear for certain people. You dont seem to follow the logic. I use them constantly, on 5 different vehicles. If they were going to fail, it should have happened already. But they havent.

I thought that all Purolators tore because of faulty media? Now it is a model based problem? Sounds a lot like excuses continue to be made to justify a problem ...


If you were in on all this from the beginning you might have a more clear understanding of what's going on. For some reason, you equate you not having a failure with there's no problem with these filters. If you study the data, it's easy to see that some have more instances of tearing than others as reported by members using them.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

So, push your filter another 10 miles and it could look like mine. The trick is that torn filters are kinda like blond/brunette people. Just because you happen do be a brunette does not dis-prove the existence of blonds. Heck, more untorn filters than torn filters could exist but considering that dozens upon dozens have been reported by a small subset of a population suggest that the problem is not minor, but rather staggering.


and there is your problem my friend, those reports were biased, analyzed by amateurs, without merit, and obviously agenda driven. i liken it to turning on foxnews for a few minutes just to reassure myself that they are still spewing chaff. great filter by the way jk, continue to use purolators with confidence.


Sure ...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: skaughtz
Has anyone played with the Purolator synthetic filters? Any reviews?


No reported tears here. Different animal than the cellulose media, which in Purolators is quite brittle and unable to take any bending stress while in service. Brittle media is one factor in the failure formula.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: skaughtz
Has anyone played with the Purolator synthetic filters? Any reviews?


I use them on a regular basis. Outstanding filter. I can post some pics of my past puro synthetics for your review if you would like. In the world of filters, I would rate them as second best. A very close second behind Royal Purple filters.



Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: skaughtz
Has anyone played with the Purolator synthetic filters? Any reviews?


...Purolators is quite brittle and unable to take any bending stress while in service. Brittle media is one factor in the failure formula.


Don't pay any attention to this bunk. Once again, if this was true, all filters that used the same media would tear. Obviously they don't all tear, heck most of them don't tear. Obvious nonsense proved by photos like these.

 

[Lubener]

3000 miles is a walk in the park for any filter.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: Lubener
3000 miles is a walk in the park for any filter.


I have posted filters at 3,4,5,7 etc.

Though I agree with you in theory, I also recognize that people with agendas will always find something to criticize.