Customer reviews for PUR CRF-950Z-4

Ratings

Category: Kitchen
Brand: PUR
Model: CRF-950Z-4
Availability: In Stock. Ships next business day.
List Price : ~~N/A~~
Special Prices:

Read PUR CRF-950Z-4 User Review

PUR CRF-950Z-4 Review by Mike H. (La Jolla, CA)

I'm currently a college student living with 5 other guys and we use Brita filter at the apartment. When you cook with Brita filter, you can't taste a thing, but when you just drink the water, it taste like tap/toilet water. It also leaves those black stuff (part of the filter) on the bottom of the container. Personally, that's just weird and nasty, but maybe people like eating those filter-particles.

Back at home, my family use Pur water filter and I have to say, you can definitely taste the difference. I think that the water filtered by Pur taste like Fiji water. It's awesome. Instead of buying those ridiculously-good-looking bottled Fiji water, I bought huge water containers and take water filtered from home to my school apartment and just drink it myself.

The only downside of Pur water filter is that it costs more than Brita filter. Being an Economics major, I calculated the cost of water per gallon (filtered). With each filter (Pur or Brita), it filters 40 gallons of water. Pur cost $24.99 for a 3-pack (Amazon.com), this means that it costs $.208 to filter a gallon of water (excluding the cost of water itself). Brita filter cost $15.99 for a 3-pack (Amazon.com), this means that it costs $.133 to filter a gallon of water (36% cheaper than Pur). Although it costs more, I still think it's worth the money. I rather spend the extra $.075 per gallon of water than to drink toilet water.

PUR CRF-950Z-4 Review by Joseph Ekaitis "author of Collinsfort Village" (Southern California)

In my recently deleted review, I praised these PUR filters for their performance and the Automatic Safety Monitor. Removing the Monitor has now made the filter much less reliable.

PUR claims in an email reply that consumers prefer the calendar sticker to the Automatic Safety Monitor:

"Hi there,

As of June/2006, the PUR 2 Stage Pitcher filter no longer has an indicator life monitor; there is now a calendar sticker you put on the pitcher.

I'm sorry you are not enjoying the improved version of our product. Many consumers have contacted us praising the new version and telling us how much better they like it. A lot of testing and research takes place before a new product enters the market or before changes are made to an existing product. We test our products very thoroughly, not only to ensure the safety of our products, but also to determine and prove the benefits of the new or upgraded model.

Change is difficult because there are always loyal consumers who like a product just the way it is. Unfortunately, it's usually not practical to manufacture both the old and new versions of a product. Nevertheless, I will certainly share your comments and experiences with our PUR Brand team.

Have a great day.

PUR Team"

The newest reviews here are a more realistic reflection of how the average and once-loyal PUR customer feels. A calender sticker doesn't know the difference between a single user, a couple like my wife and me, and a thirsty family of six. People who rely on a PUR pitcher or dispenser for health reasons must now be especially careful to monitor the filter life themselves. Throwing out a filter before it needs to be replaced is expensive and wasteful. Using a filter past the end of its life will put impurities back into the water.

The filter's overall performance is on a par with competitors but the Automatic Safety Monitor was PUR's strongest selling point. Sad to say, Procter & Gamble has turned the innovator in water filtration into another also-ran.

PUR CRF-950Z-4 Review by Consumer (USA)

I have a Pur and am very disappointed that I can't purchase the 950 anymore. Why did Pur replace the 950 with the lesser 950z?

First, they got rid of the filter-life indicator.

Second, but more importantly, NSF, a non-profit organization, does not certify the 950z for lead reduction but they did for the 950. Instead, Pur got the lead reduction certification somewhere else, from Pace Analytical Services. Note that Brita's filter *is* certified by NSF. Well, at least Pur did get the lead reduction certification from California's Dept of Health Services, which supposedly has stricter requirements than many other states.

Third, the 950z does not reduce as many contaminants as the 950 though it still does so more than the Brita's.

More PUR CRF-950Z-4 Reviews...