Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil and Kinematic Viscosity

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: https://forums.noria.com/eve/fo...=641607256#641607256
and
https://forums.noria.com/eve/fo...233608117#233608117]
Original Post
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.
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 priceRazzerformance 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? Smile


Where did you get these specs from?
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.
Also on the PureOne site it shows the efficiency rating at 20 micron at testing. Also see no mention of it being a Absolute efficiency rating, unless I missed something. It also does not have a guarenteed 25,000 mile / 1 year change interval.

The nanofiber technology of the filtration media used in the Ea oil filters is a Donaldson patent, and only is used in the Amsoil Ea and Donaldson Endurance oil filters, which are rated Absolute efficiency.
so what exactly is the 25,000 1/yr guarantee mean? What are they guaranteeing? I know amsoil makes excellent products, but their SS0 oil is states a service life of 35,000 miles or a year, or severe of 17,500. I really have not seen any uoa with that type of mileage on a normal vehicle. The higher uoa tend to show that it is a very good oil, but sometimes I wonder what they base their claims off of.
Hi Guys

We have been using the Pureoilater for more than 5 years with excellent results when compared to OEM Filters,
There is a new player we are importing filters from;
www.microgreenfilter.com/

These do work better than the Puroilater, we were concerned with the application being turbo charged that the amount of carbon would smother the filter but looking at the samples by Wear Debris Analysis, Our Lab Car, there was a noticable decrease in three body abrasive wear debris using the Soms Technology filter.


Regards


Rob S

www.rttech.com.au
Wouldn't percent efficienct by the same, basically, as Beta rating?

Where particles are fed into the oil stream and counted upstream and downstream. Result being a percent efficnency, thus making absolute and nominal claims a red herring?

99..9 beats 98.7. Period.
From my investigation M1 and Pure one filters are both better as long as you aren't looking to push them for extended drains. Makes sense too. The Amsoil filters would have to let some of the smaller stuff pass through so they can go the advertised 25K OCI without clogging up. I'd rather trap the smaller stuff too, and change the filter a little more often. The M1 and P1 filters are cheaper too. win, win for me since I don't do extended drains. YMMV.
AD
Not at all.

I'm saying nominal and absolute mean nothing when performing a Beta rating test.

I can claim my filter is 1 micron absolute, it means nothing when not tested.

And where does the 50% come from? Are you assuming that nominal means 50%? Again, it means nothing in the face of the particle counts.
I was replying to this, the last post on the first page. I (ignorantly) did not realize there was a page 2. My mistake.

FWIW, I want to see a Mobil 1 vs. PureOne Faceoff.

quote:
Originally posted by Herb:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Greenaccord02:
So are you saying the Amsoil filter catches 100% of 15 micron particles, 98.7% of the time?

I guess the PureOne catches 50% of 15-20 micron particles 99.9% of the time?


This reminds me of that old joke:

"This doohickey works 100% perfectly 67% of the time".

Big Grin
While on the surface I would conclude that both the M1 and P1 are superior to the EaO, you've got to keep multipass ratings in perspective.

The reason this is so is due to the protocol used to rate a filter. The multipass tests required loading of the upstream fluid until the filter is saturated ..aka SHOT.

So you're not dealing with anything absolute right out of the box. You're reaching that level at the end of life.

The nominal rating is more indicative of sensible filter performance.

If you tracked the M1 vs. EaO over 5k and 10k on BITOG, you saw the EaO begin to catch up. The owner wasn't willing to entertain using the 5k or 10k filters over again to determine the performance in 15k-20k range.

The EaO is a 25k/1 year filter under just about all conditions. The M1 is a 15k one year filter where a one year OCI is sensible (which would be probably around 15k) The PureOne is (probably) a 15k/one year filter (same deal).


To make a better example, you could probably use an EaO over 4 or 5 5k OCI's ..3 with the M1 or PureOne. During the first 2, the M1 and PureOne will probably filter better. They're deeper into their lifespan toward saturation. Closer to their multipass rating.

Amsoil needed a ONE YEAR filter to compliment their ONE YEAR lubricants. They no longer needed to have intermediate filter changes to replenish additives. Hence, the EaO.
quote:
Originally posted by GeeAea:
While on the surface I would conclude that both the M1 and P1 are superior to the EaO, you've got to keep multipass ratings in perspective.

The reason this is so is due to the protocol used to rate a filter. The multipass tests required loading of the upstream fluid until the filter is saturated ..aka SHOT.

So you're not dealing with anything absolute right out of the box. You're reaching that level at the end of life.

The nominal rating is more indicative of sensible filter performance.

If you tracked the M1 vs. EaO over 5k and 10k on BITOG, you saw the EaO begin to catch up. The owner wasn't willing to entertain using the 5k or 10k filters over again to determine the performance in 15k-20k range.

The EaO is a 25k/1 year filter under just about all conditions. The M1 is a 15k one year filter where a one year OCI is sensible (which would be probably around 15k) The PureOne is (probably) a 15k/one year filter (same deal).


To make a better example, you could probably use an EaO over 4 or 5 5k OCI's ..3 with the M1 or PureOne. During the first 2, the M1 and PureOne will probably filter better. They're deeper into their lifespan toward saturation. Closer to their multipass rating.

Amsoil needed a ONE YEAR filter to compliment their ONE YEAR lubricants. They no longer needed to have intermediate filter changes to replenish additives. Hence, the EaO.


Which oil filter do you like better, and which oil filter would get clogged with the stuff arx breaks off faster, the Pure One or the EaO.
quote:
Originally posted by GeeAea:
While on the surface I would conclude that both the M1 and P1 are superior to the EaO, you've got to keep multipass ratings in perspective.

The reason this is so is due to the protocol used to rate a filter. The multipass tests required loading of the upstream fluid until the filter is saturated ..aka SHOT.

So you're not dealing with anything absolute right out of the box. You're reaching that level at the end of life.

The nominal rating is more indicative of sensible filter performance.

If you tracked the M1 vs. EaO over 5k and 10k on BITOG, you saw the EaO begin to catch up. The owner wasn't willing to entertain using the 5k or 10k filters over again to determine the performance in 15k-20k range.

The EaO is a 25k/1 year filter under just about all conditions. The M1 is a 15k one year filter where a one year OCI is sensible (which would be probably around 15k) The PureOne is (probably) a 15k/one year filter (same deal).


To make a better example, you could probably use an EaO over 4 or 5 5k OCI's ..3 with the M1 or PureOne. During the first 2, the M1 and PureOne will probably filter better. They're deeper into their lifespan toward saturation. Closer to their multipass rating.

Amsoil needed a ONE YEAR filter to compliment their ONE YEAR lubricants. They no longer needed to have intermediate filter changes to replenish additives. Hence, the EaO.


Non sensical.

Nomimal rating is done via measuring pores under a microscope.

Beta ratings ARE multipass efficiency. With particle counters on stream.

Betas are the standard.
Um, there are many more companies with their brand on oil filter cannisters than there are companies that actually MAKE filters. Purolator, Fram, Wix, Hastings & a few other assemble most of the filters found on automotive engines in the US. I suspect the number is smaller still if you look at companies that actually manufacture filter media.

If you press these companies on who actually makes their filters, they may fess up, but then they will tell you how their filter was "specially designed blah blah blah...". That means "We went to a filter assembler, asked then what our options were; then we picked one."

Amsoil doesn't manufacture filters, nor does Mobil. It's all halo-effect marketing. You'll likely get the best combination of performance & price buying from a company that makes filters.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×