Purolator Boss efficiency information here

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
12,968
Location
Northern Kentucky
I posted previously about how i was trying to obtain the efficiency of the Purolator boss for the forum. I am currently unable to get the 20 micron data due to Puro not posting their ISO data, but if anyone cares i can share with you they are 99% efficient @ 32 microns

This is of course "unofficial" but is accurate and i do not have much more information so you can take it however you want. I only wish to share this information so those who care can make an informed decision. It was noted also that the media is capable of the 15k miles though which is a good thing, as well as construction quality of the filter being very good.
 
Thanks...got a source? And since it is synthetic media (I think) then it shoukd become more efficient during the OCI.
 
No I'm sorry I can't reveal the source, although I'm sure many will guess. I don't think microglass gets that much more efficient compared to how cellulose does since the pore sizes are more consistent in microglass, but I do know cellulose does especially in air filtration.
 
I predicted 36 to 38 micron, so it's better than what I thought. Fleetguard triple layer synthetic media is 99.9 at 30 micron for a cross referenced ACDelco PF52.
 
Originally Posted By: BigD1
I predicted 36 to 38 micron, so it's better than what I thought. Fleetguard triple layer synthetic media is 99.9 at 30 micron for a cross referenced ACDelco PF52.


sounds good but I will stick with my Delco 52s
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I posted previously about how i was trying to obtain the efficiency of the Purolator boss for the forum. I am currently unable to get the 20 micron data due to Puro not posting their ISO data, but if anyone cares i can share with you they are 99% efficient @ 32 microns


I'm assuming it was tested in the bat cave per ISO 4548-12. If so, then efficiency at 20 microns should have been available.

With some interpolation, I estimate that 99% @ 32 microns being about equal to 90% @ 20 microns.
 
So what is that at 20 microns? It has to get a rock catcher rating here by some on BITOG because if its not 99.X% at 20 microns its not efficient enough.
lol.gif
 
^^^ About 90% @ 20 microns. Not horrible - that would be the low end cut-off for my liking though.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I posted previously about how i was trying to obtain the efficiency of the Purolator boss for the forum. I am currently unable to get the 20 micron data due to Puro not posting their ISO data, but if anyone cares i can share with you they are 99% efficient @ 32 microns


I'm assuming it was tested in the bat cave per ISO 4548-12. If so, then efficiency at 20 microns should have been available.

With some interpolation, I estimate that 99% @ 32 microns being about equal to 90% @ 20 microns.


Yes it was tested on iso 4548-12 equipment but I the full data cannot be shared other than what I gave out.
 
If you make the micron rating whatever you want like Puro has done, a spaghetti strainer is eventually 99%.
crazy2.gif


Nice work again Puro.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Yes it was tested on iso 4548-12 equipment but I the full data cannot be shared other than what I gave out.

Now I'm curious. Can you reveal why you can't reveal where you got the info data?

As in, its test data from a Puro competitor, and they just don't want to risk lawsuits & challenges from Puro about their testing? I'm just guessing. Or, is it an employee of Puro who doesn't want to lose their job? Just answer with
happy2.gif
for the former, and
banana2.gif
for the latter..... or answer with
16.gif
if neither.
 
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Yes it was tested on iso 4548-12 equipment but I the full data cannot be shared other than what I gave out.

Now I'm curious. Can you reveal why you can't reveal where you got the info data?

As in, its test data from a Puro competitor, and they just don't want to risk lawsuits & challenges from Puro about their testing? I'm just guessing. Or, is it an employee of Puro who doesn't want to lose their job? Just answer with
happy2.gif
for the former, and
banana2.gif
for the latter..... or answer with
16.gif
if neither.
All part of the Fram internet marketing game.
 
Someone has to get down to what the efficiency really is. Seems Purolator doesn't really want to say it.
 
If I wanted to shame Purolator for the benefit of another manufacturer I could have just made up some terrible figure like 80% @ 40 microns but I presented everyone with what I know as actual test numbers.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I actually wish I could claim that I got the information from a Purolator employee secretly, that sounds fun.


I noticed what you didn't rule out: So you got it from an oil filter competitor, not Puro! Sometimes its what you don't say. Fram propaganda, I see. We are to trust propaganda?
 
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I actually wish I could claim that I got the information from a Purolator employee secretly, that sounds fun.


I noticed what you didn't rule out: So you got it from an oil filter competitor, not Puro! Sometimes its what you don't say. Fram propaganda, I see. We are to trust propaganda?


What makes this propaganda to you?
 
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
What makes this propaganda to you?
It could be propoganda if its from a competitor, secretly trying to spread negative info about Puro BOSS on the web. The source needs to not have a dog in the fight, preferably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top