I've searched the forums and it seems that people choose the Amsoil filter over PureONE on 'faith' that the Amsoil brand is somehow better than every other brand.

After checking the specs for the Amsoil EAO filter and the Purolator PureONE filter I found something shocking... PureONE is actually better by the numbers.

According this this website: http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eao.aspx

Amsoil tested their EAO with the industry standard ISO 4548-12 and found that the 15 micron efficiency to be 98.7%

PureONE's ISO 4548-12 for 5 micron is 50%, 10 micron is 92.8%, 15 micron is 99.2%, and 20 micron is 99.9%. [info source: e-mail response from the tech/engineer department].

I've e-mailed Amsoil about the 5/10/20 micron ratings that isn't listed on the website but it would seem that PureONE is better than Amsoil by the 15 micron comparison.

So... PureONE's filter is not recommended for 25,000miles oil change but Amsoil's EAO is by what logic? I guess if you trap more particles you have to change out the filter more often which means that the Amsoil one is probably letting more things through so it doesn't clog up and go into by-pass valve mode.

Any thoughts?

BTW, there was a thread about "Which is the Best Oil filter" in 2004. Back then Amsoil didn't have the EAO and people claimed that the Amsoil's SDF filter is a better choice than the PureONE. Amsoil claims that the EAO is MUCH more superior than the SDF. PureONE's numbers are a bit better than Amsoil's EAO (@15 micron so far at least). So... SDF>PureONE how?

This sort of support is similar to those who change over to cone air filters and say that there is 10-15hp increase by just putting on a filter. Did they dyno? No. They only had the 'butt' dyno claim when in reality if you do not tune rest of the intake exhaust system you will get at most 1-2hp and sometimes lose hp if you didn't heatshield the filter correctly from the engine bay heat.


[reference: http://forums.noria.com/eve/fo...=641607256#641607256
and
http://forums.noria.com/eve/fo...233608117#233608117]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ebolamonkey,

Amsoil EaO:

50.0% @ 7 micron (nominal)
98.7% @ 15 microns
99.8% @ 20 microns

Purolator PureONE:

50.0% @ 5 micron (nominal)
92.8% @ 10 micron
99.2% @ 15 micron
99.9% @ 20 micron

So, what do you guys think?

Using particle counts, people have been finding that Mobil 1 filters are better than Amsoil's Eao filters on www.bobistheoilguy.com

Hey! That is good. Any numbers?

Hell, it looks like they're all good filters.
We'll be just fine as long as we don't use FRAM.

Considering how many people do use Fram and how few engine problems there are, does it make sense to use anythng but what ever you can get cheap?

The only issue that I could forsee a problem with PureOne filter is the limited flow capability after it filters the oil for a while. Depending on the bypass valve differential setting, it could go into bypass mode faster than the EaO, depending again on the amount of crud and crap in the engine crankcase.

That being said, I have used just about every brand out there at one time or another, and the only ones I stay away from are the super el-cheapo no name ones that you can tell as soon as you look at them that they aren't going to filter much.

As much as I like the construction and figures of the EaO, the PureOne seems like a much better "deal" with filtration though. Right now, I have on Royal Purple filters (don't go there!), as they looked pretty decent in construction, but are a little more pricey than the PureOne.

In the end, it's whatever will make you happy that will win the filter battle that goes onto your engine block.

The Amsoil filters are beautiful to behold. Construction quality is top notch.

PureOne filters get the same job done at a greatly reduced price point.

PureOne filters are very good. However I have seen that the filter material is packed very tight in the can, which could as I believe someone may have mentioned cause flow or pressure problems. Shine a light into the Amsoil filter, and you will see that the filter material looks pretty neat. It is a blue gauze looking synthetic material that is actually incased in mesh. Similar to what a K&N air filter looks like.

Also, if anyone has actually picked up and held an Amsoil Ea oil filter, it is shocking how much heavier, and beefer, and just heavy duty the filter is. It is basically like they took the highest quality part from every filter manufacturer and put them together in their own filter. For instance, I have two vehicles that use a Eao15 which is the same as a Ford FL1A or small block ford filter. The Amsoil is about twice as heavy, and it is about impossible to squeeze the canister, and even on the mounting base plate, and threaded area is just much larger gauge metal than other filters. So to say that one is far better than the other, that is hard to say. I would trust the amsoil ea filter for extended drain intervals over the pure one, but I also used the pure one filters for a long time before I started picking up the Ea filters.

jdblya@gmail.com

I'd have to agree that PureOne is a better deal than an EaO in a priceerformance ratio. EaO's were specifically designed to go one year and up to the limits of the new SSO. This will typically fall into 15k or less for most people. Beyond that point, loading isn't a mileage weighted issue since most loading occurs during start up with the combustion byproducts of fuel enrichment.

The test on BITOG is interesting where the M1 filter beat the EaO in 5k pore blockage particle counts. I'm waiting for the 10k figures of like comparison. I think that we'll see the gap closing as the mileage markers increase, at least I hope so. Even significant movement toward parity would suggest that a 15k test would be even better ..and one could speculate that the EaO would still be filtering well when the M1 was approaching saturation.

PureOne is what I would recommend for anyone above 12k/year. I'd probably recommend that even if they used an oil that they only ran for 6months.

I did not read that test. But I would like to believe that the mobil filter is not a better choice than the Ea filter. I run them on both my vehicles and boat, and really liked the added piece of mind. I remember reading older filter tests with the Mobil 1 filters, and the old SDF amsoil filters, I vaguely remember the pureone being slightly better than the mobil filter? but can not remember for sure. Do you have a link to that?

quote:

Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
Amsoil EaO:

50.0% @ 7 micron (nominal)
98.7% @ 15 microns
99.8% @ 20 microns

Purolator PureONE:

50.0% @ 5 micron (nominal)
92.8% @ 10 micron
99.2% @ 15 micron
99.9% @ 20 micron

So, what do you guys think?

Where did you get these specs from?

Amsoil's #s are from Amsoil's website.

PureONE's specs were from an e-mail I received from the PureONE engineering department.

Just wondering why PureOne just doesn't advertise their 15micro rating instead of 20

Didn't test @ that micron I guess. It isn't hard to see the trend though as it should be higher than the reported Amsoil figure for 20 microns.

It wins at 15microns.
It has a lower nominal (50% efficiency) micron rating:
PureONE 5 micron
Amsoil EaO 7 micron

Anyone have the filtration stats on the NAPA Gold filters?

quote:

Originally posted by Buster:
Using particle counts, people have been finding that Mobil 1 filters are better than Amsoil's Eao filters on www.bobistheoilguy.com

Not so fast. One guy and the numbers are not repeatable, plus - it's the B/S method. The latest numbers now show a marked improvement for EaO. Need a better study.

AMSOILS Ea oil filters efficiency ratings are "ABSOLUTE" PureOne is nominal. There is a big difference. Amsoil Ea filter are Absolute at 15 micron, meaning catching all contaminates at 15 micron.

PureOne is nominal at 15-20 microns meaning it will catch only 50% of these contaminates.

PureOne may show 99.9% efficiency rating but its at Nominal. The Ea is 98.7& but it's Absolute.