Filter efficiency

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by dnewton3
Hey Zee -
You've mentioned a few times that the Puro Boss isn't a high eff filter. I'm not at all saying you're wrong, but were you able to find/relate any proof of that? I cannot find any claims on their site for that filter line. I thought I had once read it was a high eff filter, but you're stating otherwise. Just wondered if you had a link or email of something?

Presuming you're correct (and I'm not saying your're not), then I'd liken the Boss to the XP; fair to conclude it's made for the long haul at the expense of efficiency?


I called Purolator a while ago (year or so?) and got the efficiency numbers. The Boss is 99% @ 40μ is what I was told. I put all the info in a post in some buried thread, which I'll try to link to later when on my main computer. I mentioned to the person I talked to that Purolator use to show the efficiency % with a micron size before, but they only show the efficiency % now. They claimed they were going to "fix that" on their website, but apparently that never happened.

It would be interesting if you called Purolator and see what they say now on the phone. They might say it's "propriatary" like WIX now says when asked about efficiency numbers.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Hey Zee -You've mentioned a few times that the Puro Boss isn't a high eff filter.
It would be interesting if you called Purolator and see what they say now on the phone. They might say it's "propriatary" like WIX now says when asked about efficiency numbers.
Probably more like Wix is really saying "I'm hired to man the phone or answer emails, and I don't care to find out what the answer is."

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted by Shellguy
Has anyone here ever used those champion blended filters?


Champ Labs makes Mobil 1 filters and they are a blended fiber - and being these are considered Champ's XL ... Go figure ...
But, I could not find the PRV pressure on them ...

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
It would be interesting if you called Purolator and see what they say now on the phone. They might say it's "propriatary" like WIX now says when asked about efficiency numbers.


I will try to do that, Zee. It would be interesting to see what they say.
Did you just use their "contact" info from their website, or some other means?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by dnewton3
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
It would be interesting if you called Purolator and see what they say now on the phone. They might say it's "propriatary" like WIX now says when asked about efficiency numbers.


I will try to do that, Zee. It would be interesting to see what they say.
Did you just use their "contact" info from their website, or some other means?


dnewton - I just called their contact number on the Purolator website. Here's the post I made a while back after I had talked to Purolator about their efficiency numbers. It was actually 3 years ago when I called ... how time flys. At that time they gave me the efficiency with micron numbers. Of course, even if a representative of a filter company gives data on the phone some people will still think it's false information as seen by some responses in that thread. So it would be interesting to see if Purolator still gives out this info anymore on the phone, or are they now like WIX and hide behind the "it's proprietary" excuse to divulge efficiency numbers.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...he-purolator-response-office#Post4090512

Purolator "Response Office: 1-800-526-4250 or email us at [email protected].
http://www.pureoil.com/en/contactus30/contact-us/

 

[Dad2leia]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

In summary, Purolator Engineers said their PureOne efficiency vs particle size broke down as follows:

50% = B2 = below 5u
90% = B10 = 6.69u
95% = B20 = >8u
98.7% = B75 = >11u
99% = B100 = 11.42u
99.5% = B200 = >13u
99.9% = B1000 = >15u

I thought that PureOne's efficiency was much lower than Fram Ultra so you are saying Pure one is 99% efficient at 11+ microns and Ultra is 99% efficient at 20 microns?

I just posted the efficiency info that Purolator sent someone that asked for the data - back when some engineers from Purolator would actually answer emails with questions. There have been a couple of long threads all about it, and that's where that data came from. You've been here since 2002, so probably have read those threads yourself.

The Purolator BOSS is much lower efficiency (99% @ 40u) than the Ultra. But the Purolator ONE is what replaced the PureOne, which Purolator still rates at 99% @ 20u. A lot of PureOne users jump to the Ultra when the media tearing started going wild. Guys who still wanted to use a high efficiency oil filter that didn't tear.


Hey Zee, how old are those figures for the efficiency? I also know what you said about them as far as the tearing issues, but wouldn't this make them a "bargain" decent filter? I do want clean oil just like you, but in my mind, I can't justify spending more than 7 or 8 bucks on a filter given that I will be changing them on my vehicle 3 times a year.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Hey Zee, how old are those figures for the efficiency? I also know what you said about them as far as the tearing issues, but wouldn't this make them a "bargain" decent filter? I do want clean oil just like you, but in my mind, I can't justify spending more than 7 or 8 bucks on a filter given that I will be changing them on my vehicle 3 times a year.


The new Purolator line has basically the same efficiency as the old line. The Purolator ONE is rated at 99% @ 20 microns, so it's still has high efficiency. The new Purolator line might be more tear resistant than the older line, but who knows for certain. If you're not leery of them tearing then go for the Purolator ONE (the blue can) if you want the filtering efficiency. I don't know what the Purolator ONE costs these days, but it could be more that what you want to pay. A quick check on Amazon shows the ONE to be $8~$10.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Hey Zee, how old are those figures for the efficiency? I also know what you said about them as far as the tearing issues, but wouldn't this make them a "bargain" decent filter? I do want clean oil just like you, but in my mind, I can't justify spending more than 7 or 8 bucks on a filter given that I will be changing them on my vehicle 3 times a year.


The new Purolator line has basically the same efficiency as the old line. The Purolator ONE is rated at 99% @ 20 microns, so it's still has high efficiency. The new Purolator line might be more tear resistant than the older line, but who knows for certain. If you're not leery of them tearing then go for the Purolator ONE (the blue can) if you want the filtering efficiency. I don't know what the Purolator ONE costs these days, but it could be more that what you want to pay. A quick check on Amazon shows the ONE to be $8~$10.


When the new Purolator (blue can) came out on Amazon they were $5.95. I've used one and did a C&P on the can mine was just fine. I fact I've been using old PureONE gold cans off and on for ten years plus and have yet to have one Tearolator? In fact I'm currently running the gold can on my Corolla.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Guess you're lucky. Some models seemed more prone to tearing than others. And odd ball models aren't used as much as the more popular models, which has a bearing on who sees and reported torn filters vs not.

The reported BITOG torn filter spreadsheet wasn't kept up to date, so it would be larger than is shown.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...J3X3Dey7u1asadJ4o/edit?usp=sharing#gid=0

 

[Dad2leia]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Dad2leia
Hey Zee, how old are those figures for the efficiency? I also know what you said about them as far as the tearing issues, but wouldn't this make them a "bargain" decent filter? I do want clean oil just like you, but in my mind, I can't justify spending more than 7 or 8 bucks on a filter given that I will be changing them on my vehicle 3 times a year.


The new Purolator line has basically the same efficiency as the old line. The Purolator ONE is rated at 99% @ 20 microns, so it's still has high efficiency. The new Purolator line might be more tear resistant than the older line, but who knows for certain. If you're not leery of them tearing then go for the Purolator ONE (the blue can) if you want the filtering efficiency. I don't know what the Purolator ONE costs these days, but it could be more that what you want to pay. A quick check on Amazon shows the ONE to be $8~$10.


Thank you sir for the info. I have been staring at a computer screen kicking around my next batch of oil filters when my Baldwin supply runs out. Purolator One, Mann, and Donaldson have been ones I've been kicking around.

For discussion purposes, PL14459 , W 811/80, and P550162 are the corresponding filter numbers I'm looking into.