Skip to main content

Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity

Closed181 replies

Amsoil EAO vs PureONE

E ebolamonkeyMember
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:

So then you admit that Amsoil DOES indeed cherry pick data!


I never said that. AND You know it.

Tell me this, why is it that Amsoil bugs you so much? Such hatred? Just pure hate. Give it a rest. If you don't like the product, don't use it. Arguing about a product you will never use is about as dumb as a bag of hammers.


First of all I suggest that you read the entire thread before making such remarks. If you did you should know that I used to be a Amsoil dealer myself primarily because I wanted the discount rates. I quit because I don't believe what I sell and I don't believe it is a economical solution for the claimed benefits when one has to pay a membership fee, shipping and state sales tax.

Secondly, if the consumers blindly accept marketing statements without question, which is what you are implying, then we would be in a heap of trouble. It isn't about love or hate but proof of statements and the pursuit of truth. If the endeavor for truth is considered hatred then I guess in this age of discovery and science we are truly a hate filled society!

Finally, if you notice the last part of the quote was written by RobertC and my reply was to his remark not yours. I am saying that he admits that all companies cherry pick numbers for marketing and Amsoil is no different which is why he believes that "we" aren't arguing against YOUR statement of "And this differs from any other oil company in what way? " Who wouldn't cherry pick numbers for marketing claims?
P pabloMember
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:


First of all I suggest that you read the entire thread before making such remarks. If you did you should know that I used to be a Amsoil dealer myself primarily because I wanted the discount rates. I quit because I don't believe what I sell and I don't believe it is a economical solution for the claimed benefits when one has to pay a membership fee, shipping and state sales tax.

Secondly, if the consumers blindly accept marketing statements without question, which is what you are implying, then we would be in a heap of trouble. It isn't about love or hate but proof of statements and the pursuit of truth. If the endeavor for truth is considered hatred then I guess in this age of discovery and science we are truly a hate filled society!

Finally, if you notice the last part of the quote was written by RobertC and my reply was to his remark not yours. I am saying that he admits that all companies cherry pick numbers for marketing and Amsoil is no different which is why he believes that "we" aren't arguing against YOUR statement of "And this differs from any other oil company in what way? " Who wouldn't cherry pick numbers for marketing claims?


1) I've actually read the entire thread. Long, and loony. If you don't believe in a product, fine. I don't get the state sales tax thing, others oils/companies don't charge tax in your state, but Amsoil does?

2) I never said you should "blindly accept marketing statements", I just think people should pursue truth equally. It seems as if statements such as RobertC's aren't applied across the board - seems like extra special scrutiny on Amsoil. Far more crazy claims are made by Pennzoil, Castrol, etc....

3) Gotcha - I took that wrong. I thought you were responding to my comment. Sorry.
L lamontbdumontMember
Robert & Ebola - I admire your valiant efforts, but at a certain point you have to tell yourself: "Amsoil is not just a compounder-blender; it is also a cult and these guys clearly drank the Kool-Aid and are currently sucking on the ice cubes they fished from the pitcher."

I personally just tweak them out of morbid curiousity and for my personal amusement.
A adfd1Member
IMO if you're looking to filter the oil and get the most junk out go with either a Pure One or a Mobil 1 filter. If you want to run oil for 25,000 miles use the Amsoil filter. Just be careful if you have a Toyota engine running an Amsoil filter too long, it appears there is a TSB about it. At least I read that somewhere.

I'd rather get the most dirt out of my engine so I pass on the Amsoil filters. JMO

AD
P pabloMember
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Trying to learn so go easy fellas. If the results were mistakenly contaminated what good are the test results?

AD


P1>>EaO

The metals aside from Fe and Al are just additives in the oil. On particle count P1 beats EaO.

On the BITOG thread Mobil 1 beats EaO. P1 will be tested next.


No it doesn't. All you've done is just prove your bias for all to read. Please precisely and clearly HOW YOU came to that conclusion.
E ebolamonkeyMember
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
Over the long haul, the Donaldson/amsoil is superior! Imagine what it is doing at its half life. Moreover,why even bother with the P1,why not use the Bosch distance instead,...rated at 300% capacity and 99% efficient. Yes, it costs more up front like the amsoil.

The Amsoil is a microglass depth filter, and the P1/bosch is synthetic and does not flow as well.

These filters are two different animals,with the glass being far superior!


Glass was pre-EaO which is what Synlube filter is now.

Bosch owns P1.
E ebolamonkeyMember
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
No it doesn't. All you've done is just prove your bias for all to read. Please precisely and clearly HOW YOU came to that conclusion.


Particle count. For the purposes of filtration P1 and M1 does a better job vs. EaO. For duration of 25k miles is another story but for the general oil change interval of 5k-10k P1 and M1 is far superior.
Last edited by ebolamonkey
A adfd1Member
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
No it doesn't. All you've done is just prove your bias for all to read. Please precisely and clearly HOW YOU came to that conclusion.


Particle count. For the purposes of filtration P1 and M1 does a better job vs. EaO. For duration of 25k miles is another story but for the general oil change interval of 5k-10k P1 and M1 is far superior.


That is what I read as well. For the shorter OCI the P1 or M1 filter does a better job. I saw testing on a site by a member and his data backed it up. Even if I were to run an oil for 15,000 miles I'd rather use a Pure 1 filter and change it out at 7,500 miles than run the Amsoil filter the full 15,000 miles. Wish I could find the results.

AD
P pabloMember
quote:


That is what I read as well. For the shorter OCI the P1 or M1 filter does a better job. I saw testing on a site by a member and his data backed it up. Even if I were to run an oil for 15,000 miles I'd rather use a Pure 1 filter and change it out at 7,500 miles than run the Amsoil filter the full 15,000 miles. Wish I could find the results.

AD


Please post the data. I would love to see it. Thanks.
R robertcMember
quote:
Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
Have any of you folks ever run a particle counter, AKA The Magic Eight-Ball?



Technique counts!

How was the sample drawn?
Flush volume?
New tubing?
Was the bottle clean or super clean?
How was the sample agitated at the lab?
Can the machine distinguish water and entrained air?

I've toyed, on a minor level, with a Laser-Net Fines.

I'm trying to buy my own.
P pabloMember
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...Number=915831&page=1

This is an Amsoil EaO Oil Filter versus a Purolator Pure One Oil Filter.

After what I have read here and in the old threads on BITOG I really have no desire to ever use an Amsoil EaO Oil Filter.


That data didn't prove anything. It really didn't. What old threads? What have you read here? Sounds like you already had your mind made up - which is fine, but since people are claiming some data - I still want to see it.
E ebolamonkeyMember
I feel even after presenting valid evidence the witch hunt still goes on with the Amsoil fanboys against all non-Amsoil products. While Amsoil sounds good on paper and has good marketing schemes it does not measure up in real world environments.

Let me say this again and many others have said this before as well:

I use a filter to filter OUT the particles and not have them keep floating around in the oil.

If at 5000miles Amsoil has all this extra particles floating around I wonder what kind of sandpaper action would have taken place after another 20,000miles.

Change often, filter well, keep stuff clean OR Change 25k, filter less, keep stuff "economical" and "hassle-free" (not as frequent oil change). Choice is up to you.
B bigbearMember
PUREONE BETA RATES! [Re: SHAMUS]
Gary Allan Offline


Registered: 09/28/02
Posts: 36279
Loc: Pottstown, PA
Micron 5 = B4.8
Micron 10 = B50
Micron 15 = B1000
Micron 20 = B1000


5um and greater = 79.2
10um and greater= 98%
15um and greater= 99.9
20um and greater= 99.9

These are exceptional numbers. Not matched by high end incredibly expensive filters from Donaldson that Purolator doesn't even make.

20 Series Particulate removal spin-on filters. 3.69" diameter. Two lengths available (5.27" and 8.64"). Three media grades (10 micron paper, 25 micron paper and 7 micron fiberglass). 100 psi pressure rating. Buna N gasket, 1" - 12 UNF threads. For detailed information, request bulletin #20/21-5/01-2K or download PDF brochure.

http://www.purolator-facet.com/pdfs/spin2021.pdf

You can't buy a FL1A sized hydraulic filter from them at that micron rating, let alone a static spec for a much dirtier automotive environment.

http://www.purolator-facet.com/hydrau4.htm

This is too fantastic to be quite right.
_________________________
http://lube-direct.com/gallan/


Gary Allan sells Amsoil just like Pablo does, and he even thinks the Pure One is a better Oil Filter than the Amsoil EaO.

Donaldson makes the media for the Amsoil EaO Oil Filter, so Pablo, is Gary wrong, I think Gary just tells the truth, and I am sorry to say this to you Pablo, but you will say anything to sell Amsoil products.
P pabloMember
quote:
This is too fantastic to be quite right.


Not sure what Gary was saying there. I think you did not pick up on Gary's comments correctly. I'm not sure if Gary is reading this thread or not - but it would nice for him to weigh in.

I will NOT say anything to sell Amsoil. What have I said here that is so fantastic? So "anything"? What I am simply asking for is data to back the claims being made. I've seen a thread or two posted, but certainly nothing to refute the study done by GeorgeCLS (a Mobil guy) of EaO filtering ability.
B bigbearMember
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:
This is too fantastic to be quite right.


Not sure what Gary was saying there. I think you did not pick up on Gary's comments correctly. I'm not sure if Gary is reading this thread or not - but it would nice for him to weigh in.

I will NOT say anything to sell Amsoil. What have I said here that is so fantastic? So "anything"? What I am simply asking for is data to back the claims being made. I've seen a thread or two posted, but certainly nothing to refute the study done by GeorgeCLS (a Mobil guy) of EaO filtering ability.


The problem with the thread that GeorgeCLS did was that he compared an OEM Oil Filter against the Amsoil EaO Oil Filter.

From what I have seen the Purolator Pure One Oil Filter is half the price of the Amsoil EaO Oil Filter and it fiters just as well if not better than the Amsoil EaO.

The only way I would even consider using the Amsoil EaO is if the Particle Count Test showed half the number of wear particles compared to the Pure One Oil Filter and I have not seen that yet.

I also believe since the Amsoil EaO Oil Filter is a long life oil filter and is one designed to go one year or 25,000 miles that it is going to let more contaniments flow through at 1st.

Most people are changing there oil based on what there owner's manual says, maybe 5000 mile OCI or so, maybe some people are taking there OCI out to 10,000 miles or so, in this case the Purolator Pure one is a better oil filter for a 5000 mile or 10,000 mile OCI.

I would love for Gary Allan to weigh in, because I have seen posts of his where he has stated that a cheap oil filter is fine for 5000 mile OCI's. I have seen posts where he has stated where he has bought and used cheap oil filters, I have yet to see any posts from him where he is exclusively using the Amsoil EaO Oil Filter.

Pablo, I am having a hard time buying anything you have to say here because you do sell Amsoil Products and therefore I feel any statements you make are in the sole intention of making Amsoil look good. I also think you do not have our best interests at heart.

I would like to use the Amsoil EaO Oil Filter and Pablo I know you would like us all to buy the Amsoil EaO Oil Filters over the Purolator Pure One, so why not contact Amsoil and ask them to make an Oil Filter that is better than the Purolator Pure One Oil Filter.
P pabloMember
It would make zero sense to run an EaO filter for under 7500 miles, or if you you change your oil at that or lower OCI. I don't think I ever said any different, give or take 1K miles, depending on engine, etc. Did you see a post where I said different?

Honda recommends the filter be changed every other oil change. I don't follow that in the family van, because I'm already doing 12K-18K OCI's. EaO's make sense in that type of application. Ask my wife!

I think the GeorgeCLS study showed just how well the EaO does, regardless of what he it compared to. I have seen zero evidence that the Pure One is better than an EaO - yet this keeps being repeated. I just read a lot of stuff here that isn't exactly true about Amsoil, so I jump in.
B bigbearMember
quote:
These are exceptional numbers. Not matched by high end incredibly expensive filters from Donaldson that Purolator doesn't even make.


Pablo, again your fellow Amsoil Site Sponsor Gary Allan over at BITOG has said the Pure One is a better Oil Filter than the Amsoil EaO.

I just think you jump in here to cause some doubt to push Amsoil without any proof to show us that the Amsoil EaO is a better oil filter than the Purolator Pure One.
P pabloMember
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
quote:
These are exceptional numbers. Not matched by high end incredibly expensive filters from Donaldson that Purolator doesn't even make.


Pablo, again your fellow Amsoil Site Sponsor Gary Allan over at BITOG has said the Pure One is a better Oil Filter than the Amsoil EaO.

I just think you jump in here to cause some doubt to push Amsoil without any proof to show us that the Amsoil EaO is a better oil filter than the Purolator Pure One.


He is talking about the filter in the link, did you actually read that?
P pabloMember
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:


The problem with the thread that GeorgeCLS did was that he compared an OEM Oil Filter against the Amsoil EaO Oil Filter.


quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeCLS:


Yes, I did test the EaO oil filter under varying pressure conditions: on my Toyota Sequoia used oil analysis/particle count which I published the results on this thread some months ago. The EaO turned in "real world" filtration performance (not laboratory constant flow) to a level of cleanliness cleaner than the Mobil 1 coming out of the bottle!!

And I would also agree that the Amsoil EaO, Mobil 1 and Pure One are superb filters with the EaO superior in every performance aspect simply due to its 100% microglass medium construction vs. the glass/cellulose blend used in the Mobil 1 and Pure 1 filters.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
L lamontbdumontMember
Well, I've operated the equipment, which pretty much put me off them from the get-go. First, you're measuring something that's in suspension; by definition it's prone to random dispersion, no matter what you try. (And I tried plenty.) The analysis has significant variability when you look at the raw data. Those nice, small two-digit-three-number ISO codes cover more real estate than you might think, which gives the analysis the appearance of precision.

After I climbed off of the bench, I had occasion to wonder "Yes, I'm having particles counted (badly), but where do those particles come from?"

Unless the sample was taken in an ultra-clean particle count jar by an experienced, well trained technician using proper equipment with a procedure that include adequate flushing, then properly protected from contamination right through the testing process, you can pretty much line the birdcage with your particle count results.

You've just succeeded in making a fairly wild estimate of the number of particles in a sample that may or may not (most likely not for the purposes of this exercise) represent the system in question.

But wait there's more...

I haven't got the foggiest notion about the nature of said particles. A little iron filing or a little chunk of cellulose filter media, it's all the same to Mr Laser Particle-Counter, he mis-counts 'em all.

Yeah, when they bring out the particle count data, it's like when the band takes a break and they bring out the karaoke machine.
A adfd1Member
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
Lamont - to be totally honest, that's my thoughts about particle counts in a nutshell. I am very doubtful of B/S counts.

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT!!


Doesn't mean Amsoil is any better. Smile

Exactly! Especially if they're doing the counting.
Here's a test, hook up P1, M1, and the Amsoil filter side by side on a machine. Each filter is attached to its own base and has the exact same amount of oil and junk to filter. Run the test for 50 hours, remove filters and do a particle count? Refill the solution change the filters and run the test for say 100 hours. Is that how it's done?

I remember reading somewhere a quote by a respected member saying something to the effect of. If you run a test enough times you'll get the results you want. Made a lot of sense to me.

I often wondered why when Amsoil runs their 4 ball test they run the machine differently for ASM and SSO? I saw that question posed elsewhere as well. I'm not sure if it was answered I can't find it anymore.

SSO-Four-Ball Wear Test (ASTM D4172: 40kgf, 150°C, 1800 rpm, 1 hr) Scar diameter, mm 0.406

ASM-Four Ball Wear, 75°C, 1200 rpm, 40kg, 1 hour (ASTM D-4172B)
0.35


Always wondering and trying to learn more things automotive. I also read that 4 ball test is meaningless in determining how good an oil is, but that's another story. Thanks
AD
V vitualmageMember
I might be wrong, but ill say suit your need, both seems good to me. People doing short oci will never have to worry much even if they where using a fram People doing long oci either are the kind who pay extremely good attention to their oil and filter ,consumption , sludge ect ,or they are the kind who just don’t care and go do their oil change when they think about it time to time.
L lamontbdumontMember
The Four-Ball is run in a lot of different configurations, depending on the product and its intended service. The wear version for fluids - D4172 - has a couple of different allowable variants. It's a lot more applicable to ball or roller bearings than to the plain bearings usually found in automotive engines. Then you've got the EP-version that is more applicable to EP gear oils. There are also grease versions of both.

The most important thing to know about the Four-Ball is that it is a screener with very high inherent variability. When embarking on a formulation program, it will help you to weed out the losers. It will NOT help you pick a winner.

As such, any marketing effort that relies on the Four-Ball is inherently suspect.
R robertcMember
Particle counts do indeed have their issues.

I use them for some things, not others.

And Lamont is right. Thay can be meaningless.

But still, it is a tool I use. Carefully.

But try this,

An high end 18/16/13 code can have 1 more particle in each range and become a low end 19/17/14

Or, a low end 18/16/13 can add 4 times as many particles and still be a 19/17/14.

so, is it relevant or not? That's why I get paid.

Non of that make any difference in the world of Beta ratings, sure, they may not be perfect. But it is info done to a standard.

And Pablo, sorry, but P1 beat eao.
B bigbearMember
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
Lamont - to be totally honest, that's my thoughts about particle counts in a nutshell. I am very doubtful of B/S counts.

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT!!


Pablo, the Amsoil Salesman, if the Particle Count looked better for Amsoil you would be running with it, but since it does not you just make excuses.

I do not think anyone here is buying that your Amsoil EaO Oil Filter is better than the Pure One Oil Filter, you certainly are not selling me or anyone else on this board that your oil filter is better.

I also know that Amsoil constructs there tests to make there products look better.

Everything your company now sells is outdated, except your trans and diff fluid, your grease is still top notch, your powersteering fluid is awesome, but your oil's and oil filters are not up to par.
PreviousNext
Post
attend Reliable Plant 2024

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×