Purolator BOSS ??

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by dave1251
The size really isn't as important as the testing results after the filters use. It would be interesting to see the efficiency ratings let's say after 200 hours of use.


For most filters the efficiency wiil probably get a bit lower as it loads up. Increased delta-p can causes captured particles to break loose and flow downstream. A smaller sized filter isn't going to hold as much debris as a larger filter, so the smaller filter will load faster and have more delta-p. This is why smaller filters might have a worse overall efficiency rating, like the two smallest spin-ons Purolators mentioned before.

 

[dnewton3]

I have a Boss on my wife's Taurus right now; got it free from a friend that had left over stock when he changed cars.
I will be curious to see how the UOA and PC data play out.

 

[Job]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dave1251
The size really isn't as important as the testing results after the filters use. It would be interesting to see the efficiency ratings let's say after 200 hours of use.


For most filters the efficiency wiil probably get a bit lower as it loads up. Increased delta-p can causes captured particles to break loose and flow downstream. A smaller sized filter isn't going to hold as much debris as a larger filter, so the smaller filter will load faster and have more delta-p. This is why smaller filters might have a worse overall efficiency rating, like the two smallest spin-ons Purolators mentioned before.


The sae test is done in real time, and until each filter is loaded. The result is an average. All sizes go through the same loading delta p's during the test. The test is of the media and structure. Leakage will skew results too. I know you want the Boss not to have more efficiency than you said other times, and are looking for a way to be right, but that's not it yet afaik.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dave1251
The size really isn't as important as the testing results after the filters use. It would be interesting to see the efficiency ratings let's say after 200 hours of use.

For most filters the efficiency wiil probably get a bit lower as it loads up. Increased delta-p can causes captured particles to break loose and flow downstream. A smaller sized filter isn't going to hold as much debris as a larger filter, so the smaller filter will load faster and have more delta-p. This is why smaller filters might have a worse overall efficiency rating, like the two smallest spin-ons Purolators mentioned before.

The sae test is done in real time, and until each filter is loaded. The result is an average. All sizes go through the same loading delta p's during the test. The test is of the media and structure. Leakage will skew results too. I know you want the Boss not to have more efficiency than you said other times, and are looking for a way to be right, but that's not it yet afaik.


You're trying to put words in my mouth and skew what I said, and trying to slander me (your text in red). Remember what happened last time you went down that rabbit hole?

Go back and re-read what I said. I said Purolator now shows on their website that the Boss to be 99+% @ 25μ, so maybe they improved the media because that's not what the Boss use to be advertised at.

If the Boss is better than before than that's great and maybe Purolator decided they needed to make it better based on consumers wanting better efficiency out of a full synthetic media oil filter.

As far as the ISO efficiency test, the end resulting efficiency rating is the average efficiency from new to loaded. So if a smaller filter is tested the delta-p will increase faster over the test period and the end loaded efficiency will be lower at the end of the test. Therefore, the efficiency difference between new and loaded will be a larger difference than on a larger filter.

The larger the difference between the new and loaded difference, then the lower the ISO 4548-12 efficiency will be. If you could fully understand the ISO test along with how oil filter efficiency can drop due to loading, then you'd understand how a larger oil filter can show a better efficiency than a smaller filter in the ISO test.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Nice to read that the Boss now has improved trapping. Thanks!

 

[paoester]

Boss is good. Fram Ultra is still better. The double layer of media in an Ultra wins. Forget efficiency if you want, just look at how its made. Steel backing might be better than plastic mesh backing as well.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
Nice to read that the Boss now has improved trapping. Thanks!



I agree ^^^^

 

[Job]

The three Fram filters listed on their box all have 99+% at greater than 20 microns. One is 4967 small, the other large, they last has no bypass. Two have different baseplates. Efficiency is the same on all.

Good to learn Purolator updated the efficiency rating on the Boss filters. It well could have been marketing just kept the old rating from previous models.

I have used them and to me the oil on the stick looked pretty good compared to other filters, using the same oil year after year, the eye sees a lot. I know people say that's nothing, but I think it is something to put a stick in the oil and look at a sample by eye. When we buy a used car what is one of the first things we do? We take the stick out and see how much oil is in and also how the oil looks.

 

[RDY4WAR]

It is nice to see that the BOSS's efficiency has improved. It's still less than the Fram Ultra, but much better than before. However, as long as the tearing issues continue with their lower models, and they continue to ignore the complaints about it, I can't bring myself to support them. When they reach out to people, acknowledge the issues/concerns, and start an initiative to correct the problems, I'll give them a shot. Customer service and engagement/support with the community go a long way with me. If they hide behind marketing, I don't care for them.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Its still not up to the new Purolator One's efficiency at nearly twice the cost.

 

[paoester]

Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Its still not up to the new Purolator One's efficiency at nearly twice the cost.
Does the new PuroOne tear? Not sure if I trust that company with paper filters yet. Boss is fine though.

Wait, efficiency isn't higher. They say "99% removal" on their website, without any micron level mentioned. How deceptive is that? Efficiency is really what then?

 

[RDY4WAR]

The Wix Racing filter is also 99% efficient.... at 60 microns.

 

[paoester]

Ok I see http://www.pureoil.com/en/do-it-yourself/oil-filters/oil-filter-selection-guide/
has the Boss being more efficient than PuroOne. Both aren't bad on efficiency. PuroOne is a cellulose (wood pulp) media mixed with resin or glass fibers, one of those mixed in.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Originally Posted by paoester
Ok I see http://www.pureoil.com/en/do-it-yourself/oil-filters/oil-filter-selection-guide/
has the Boss being more efficient than PuroOne. Both aren't bad on efficiency. PuroOne is a cellulose (wood pulp) media mixed with resin or glass fibers, one of those mixed in.


The bottom of that link states "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on L30001 and PL30001; 25 microns on PBL30001". That would indicate the PureOne filter is more efficient than the BOSS... at least up until it tears.

 

[Job]

Can the links be provided on the torn new Pure One's please?

The Boss says 99%+ at 25. So at 99 it is under 25. Pretty good I'd say, since how does the scanner know if a particle is 20 or 25 microns?The scanner has no brain to know if the particle is rounder than 20-25 and may be seeing the particle on end. Maybe they buy real good test dust.