Skip to main content

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

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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
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.


It certainly bugs you that I'm an Amsoil dealer. Should I not post here? Or anywhere? I'm not hiding anything, I'm not being sneaky. Why do I bother you so much?

I have actually often noted particle tests are suspect. You can read that on BITOG. I'm sure it's not suspect if one of your favorite filters comes out ahead...but even then I'm still waiting for you to post your evidence.

So can you post some evidence? If you KNOW Amsoil tests are rigged, post it. We will read it.

EVERYTHING Amsoil sells in outdated. How so? Again, data. Facts. Truth. Please post it.

Thanks,

Paul
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
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.


It certainly bugs you that I'm an Amsoil dealer. Should I not post here? Or anywhere? I'm not hiding anything, I'm not being sneaky. Why do I bother you so much?

I have actually often noted particle tests are suspect. You can read that on BITOG. I'm sure it's not suspect if one of your favorite filters comes out ahead...but even then I'm still waiting for you to post your evidence.

So can you post some evidence? If you KNOW Amsoil tests are rigged, post it. We will read it.

EVERYTHING Amsoil sells in outdated. How so? Again, data. Facts. Truth. Please post it.

Thanks,

Paul


Pablo, I am not telling you to not post here, feel free to post, the problem I have is that Gary Allan is also an Amsoil Dealer and he tells it like it is, he has even said that the Pure One Oil Filter is better than the Amsoil EaO Oil Filter, but I am sure he thinks if you are going to run an OCI for over 10,000 miles he would probably think the Amsoil EaO is a better oil filter.

I just feel Pablo that when I see your posts it is a sales pitch for Amsoil, it seems everyone or just about everyone thinks the Pure One is a better oil filter. I just think you will say anything to make Amsoil look good and you hope to get a sale from your posts.

I believe Particle Tests are not suspect, but again if there are any posts that show another product may be better than an Amsoil product, you just seem to jump in and cause doubt.
quote:
Gary Allan sells Amsoil just like Pablo does, and he even thinks the Pure One is a better Oil Filter than the Amsoil EaO.


No. I said that a PureOne is a good filter.


Read the protocols for determining Absolute filtering. George of CLS just couldn't communicate it well.

The EaO is a one year filter with up to 25k in that time span. I'd probably put the PureOne at being a one year filter with a 15k limit. I'd put M1 in the same bracket.

As the btanchors test began to show, the EaO started to come into line with the M1 @ about 10k.

That said, an EaO might not work out for you if you're doing lower mileage over ONE YEAR in terms of value. If a PureOne for $7 can do the job for 12-15k ..use it.

The EaO is a simple concept. Regardless of the true reasoning, the typical Amsoil recommendation was to change out the filter at 6 months to replenish the additives. It also refreshed the filter. As the oils advanced the road block to easier sales was the intermediate filter change. If someone had a difficult filter or wasn't a DIY'r the inconvenience might tip the scale to not buying an extended drain oil. The EaO eliminated that road block.

One year, oil and filter. Now since that's had longer term in the field, it appears that the EaO cannot cover all service profiles over that time span. Namely the Toyota/Lexus engines. They must have some dirty warm up cycle that loads the filter disproportionately, or so I reason.
Last edited by geeaea
quote:
Originally posted by GeeAea:
quote:
Gary Allan sells Amsoil just like Pablo does, and he even thinks the Pure One is a better Oil Filter than the Amsoil EaO.


No. I said that a PureOne is a good filter.


Read the protocols for determining Absolute filtering. George of CLS just couldn't communicate it well.

The EaO is a one year filter with up to 25k in that time span. I'd probably put the PureOne at being a one year filter with a 15k limit. I'd put M1 in the same bracket.

As the btanchors test began to show, the EaO started to come into line with the M1 @ about 10k.

That said, an EaO might not work out for you if you're doing lower mileage over ONE YEAR in terms of value. If a PureOne for $7 can do the job for 12-15k ..use it.

The EaO is a simple concept. Regardless of the true reasoning, the typical Amsoil recommendation was to change out the filter at 6 months to replenish the additives. It also refreshed the filter. As the oils advanced the road block to easier sales was the intermediate filter change. If someone had a difficult filter or wasn't a DIY'r the inconvenience might tip the scale to not buying an extended drain oil. The EaO eliminated that road block.

One year, oil and filter. Now since that's had longer term in the field, it appears that the EaO cannot cover all service profiles over that time span. Namely the Toyota/Lexus engines. They must have some dirty warm up cycle that loads the filter disproportionately, or so I reason.
Gary, do you really think the PureONE will last 15,000 miles? I understand this is a very highly restrictive filter and could go into bypass before then. Their website says "Purolator PureONE oil filters should be replaced every 3,000 miles or 3 months depending on the driving conditions - or unless otherwise specified by the vehicle's manufacturer." Are there any PureONE applications for cars that recommend 15,000 mile oil change intervals?

My Ford and Chevy list 3,000 mile oil change intervals for my severe use, so I would limit the PureONE filter for 3,000 miles, whereas AMSOIL recommends/warranties 15,000 mile/1 year oil and filter changes for the same service. So for the same or nearly the same filtering ability of both filters, the EaO would be 5 times better for me.
Last edited by timvipond
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Pure One filters are good for the mfg suggested OCI, what ever that may be. They have a great CS, I would give them a call if you have any concerns with their filters. I have used them for 1 year OCI's w/o issue. I doubt the Amsoil filter would be 5 times better for you.

AD
I've showed the Ford and Chevy interval for my service to be 3,000 miles, which is what PureONE would also recommend, and AMSOIL recommends 15,000 miles for the same service. Isn't that 5 times longer/better? I've followed the AMSOIL recommendations for 6 years now for my vehicles and equipment, and it works well for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
I understand this is a very highly restrictive filter and could go into bypass before then. Their website says "Purolator PureONE oil filters should be replaced every 3,000 miles or 3 months depending on the driving conditions - or unless otherwise specified by the vehicle's manufacturer." Are there any PureONE applications for cars that recommend 15,000 mile oil change intervals?


You understand not. EaO, according to the synthetic media theory, should be the more 'restrictive' one but it isn't. I already stated that the 3k mile change is advertisement. How do you know PureONE's go into bypass if you don't even use it yourself? Where is the proof stating that PureONE's go into bypass after 3k miles?

Run 15,000 miles yourself and see. I have done it on PureONE and also on regular Purolator and both works fine.

All of the truths you've heard from Tim Vipond are lies
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
I understand this is a very highly restrictive filter and could go into bypass before then. Their website says "Purolator PureONE oil filters should be replaced every 3,000 miles or 3 months depending on the driving conditions - or unless otherwise specified by the vehicle's manufacturer." Are there any PureONE applications for cars that recommend 15,000 mile oil change intervals?


quote:
You understand not. EaO, according to the synthetic media theory, should be the more 'restrictive' one but it isn't. I already stated that the 3k mile change is advertisement. How do you know PureONE's go into bypass if you don't even use it yourself? Where is the proof stating that PureONE's go into bypass after 3k miles?
How would the EaO nanofiber filter with more surface area and pores be more restrictive than a PureONE microfiber filter with less surface area and fewer pores? As far as the 3,000 mile/3 month PureONE recommendation, that is Purolators and Ford's and Chevy's for my vehicles and service, not mine.

quote:
Run 15,000 miles yourself and see. I have done it on PureONE and also on regular Purolator and both works fine.
Why would I want to go against my owners manual and Purolators recommendations? If it failed, it could cost me a lot of money. New motorhomes are not cheap.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:How would the EaO nanofiber filter with more surface area and pores be more restrictive than a PureONE microfiber filter with less surface area and fewer pores? As far as the 3,000 mile/3 month PureONE recommendation, that is Purolators and Ford's and Chevy's for my vehicles and service, not mine.


What pores? Seems like to me the 'restrictive' filter does its job while this nanofiber filter allows more particles to pass through these so called 'nanopores.' The inconsistency in the photographs I mentioned a while ago makes me doubt this 'nano' technology.
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:How would the EaO nanofiber filter with more surface area and pores be more restrictive than a PureONE microfiber filter with less surface area and fewer pores? As far as the 3,000 mile/3 month PureONE recommendation, that is Purolators and Ford's and Chevy's for my vehicles and service, not mine.


What pores? Seems like to me the 'restrictive' filter does its job while this nanofiber filter allows more particles to pass through these so called 'nanopores.' The inconsistency in the photographs I mentioned a while ago makes me doubt this 'nano' technology.
You ought to go to http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2202.pdf?zo=1181889 and learn about this technology. The smaller fibers and pore spaces trap the particles on the filter surface. Donaldson has used this nano technology in their top filters for 20 years. No doubts from any of their customers that they work as advertised.

I don't see any inconsistencies in the photographs. Micro fibers can range from 1000 to 1 microns, Nanofibers can range from 1000 to 1 nanometers. Different references could be comparing different sizes and media.
Last edited by timvipond

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×