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
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]
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

D dad2leiaMember
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.
J jdblyaMember
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?
H herbMember
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.
H herbMember
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.
J jdblyaMember
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.
R rttechMember
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
A adfd1Member
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
G greenaccord02Member
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.
L lamontbdumontMember
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.
R robertcMember
I'll never understand why supposedly knowledgalbe people will use an inferior filter.

Really, you'll use a 15,000 mile 'severe' filter that does not work as well over a filter that FILTERS better?

What is the point of, oh, filtering if you do it wrong?

GA, I have a friend who does top of the line everything for his vehicle. and then throws it all out at 3,000 miles.

Go figure.
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
I'll never understand why supposedly knowledgalbe people will use an inferior filter.
Me too.

quote:
Really, you'll use a 15,000 mile 'severe' filter that does not work as well over a filter that FILTERS better?
What warranted filter performs better during a 15,000 severe miles oil and filter change than an EaO or a bypass filtration system? The 3500 Texas State Police cars use the EaO for 20,000 severe mile AMSOIL oil and filter changes for the past 10 years and had better used oil analysis, less wear and fewer repairs than when they used 2,000 to 3,000 mile conventional oil and filter changes. And saved a lot of time and money.

quote:
What is the point of, oh, filtering if you do it wrong?
Exactly.

quote:
GA, I have a friend who does top of the line everything for his vehicle. and then throws it all out at 3,000 miles.

Go figure.
They've been brainwashed by the oil companies that own quick lubes that promote 3,000 mile oil changes. Whose fault is that?
Last edited by timvipond
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
While the EaO is a good filter, it's not a great filter.

I'll sacrifice longevity for effectiveness. Else, why bother?
The EaO is a great filter. No question about it.

Who else makes a full flow, synthetic nanofiber 15 micron near absolute, higher flow and particle capacity, and a 25,000 mile/1 year warranty? No one. These filters have shown use in million mile gasoline engines with 30,000 mile oil and filter change intervals and very little wear.
Last edited by timvipond
R robertcMember
quote:
Beta = 75 at 15 microns


So not a 15 micron ABSOLUTE as you said earlier.

That's a good filter, but now I am at the part that turns me off to Amsoil.

And I think if you do it once, you'll do it again. (not you specifically, a global you)

why claim an absurd 15 micron absolute rating when you have data that says a perfectly fine B75 at 15?

Why rely on a cheap screening test, 4 ball, as a basis for suitability when you have ngine run data that says it is better than some or even most?

My opinion, cherry picking to get tho the top of amsoils cherry picked list of attrtibutes.


At these levels of hyperbole and obfuscation, I have to wonder what is missed bu those without all of the raw data.
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
quote:
Beta = 75 at 15 microns


So not a 15 micron ABSOLUTE as you said earlier.
This is what some AMSOIL literature says "• Absolute Efficiency Filtration @ 15 Microns Per ISO 4548-12 " Some other literature says "Near-perfect absolute efficiency rating" This is why the 98.7% at 15 microns per ISO 4548-12 is given. Industry standard data that is often hard to find with other filters, likely because they do not perform as well. AMSOIL even prints the data on every box and filter and compares to "Conventional brand Name Synthetic Blend Filters" at 82.3% and "Conventional Brand Name Paper Oil filters" at 39.39% . Don't you wish other companies would step up and do the same?

quote:
That's a good filter, but now I am at the part that turns me off to Amsoil.

And I think if you do it once, you'll do it again. (not you specifically, a global you)

why claim an absurd 15 micron absolute rating when you have data that says a perfectly fine B75 at 15?
Again, this is what some AMSOIL literature says "• Absolute Efficiency Filtration @ 15 Microns Per ISO 4548-12 " Some other AMSOIL literature says "Near-perfect absolute efficiency rating " This is why the 98.7% at 15 microns per ISO 4548-12 is given. Industry standard data that is often hard to find with other filters, likely because they do not perform as well.

quote:
Why rely on a cheap screening test, 4 ball, as a basis for suitability when you have ngine run data that says it is better than some or even most?
The whole industry relies on the 4 ball test as a screening tool. It frequently correlates with engine wear tests as seen in numerous papers when comparing similar oils. And as seen when BP/Castrol and Ashland Valvoline saw 4X and 8X less engine wear than Mobil 1, which correlated to AMSOIL's 4 ball wear test. The 4 ball wear test is only 1 test AMSOIL uses to compare oils. You need to look at the data sheets, white papers, and other comparisons. I would rather use a well formulated oil that has better 4 ball wear results than one not formulated as well that has poorer 4 ball results.

quote:
My opinion, cherry picking to get tho the top of amsoils cherry picked list of attrtibutes.


At these levels of hyperbole and obfuscation, I have to wonder what is missed bu those without all of the raw data.

No one in the industry has ever proven AMSOIL of false data or claims for 38 years. No oil company has ever shown their oil to be equal to or superior to AMSOIL.
Last edited by timvipond
B busterMember
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-En..._Specifications.aspx

These are the tests that are required for a motor oil to meet.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-En...Mobil_1_Brochure.pdf

Honda tested several synthetic oils a few years ago and most failed miserably on the TEOST test. Amsoil probably would have done well, although when I asked why their ASL 5w30 was not recommended for HTO-06 they told me it might need a "booster" oook. They only recommend SSO for this spec.

If it wasn't for Mobil 1 being such a good oil and readily available, I'd probably be more inclined to use Amsoil. I've used Amsoil in the past and for my personal application it never outperformed Mobil 1.

quote:
Not All Oils Are Created Equal
Not all synthetic oils meet Acura’s HTO-06 standard.
In fact, using the wrong oil in a high-performance
turbocharged engine leads to accumulated deposits
in the engine, which reduces performance and
causes engine wear. In exhaustive testing conducted
by Acura engineers, Mobil 1 produced no critical
deposits on critical engine components such as
the seal ring, shaft, and the turbo walls.
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by Buster:
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-En..._Specifications.aspx

These are the tests that are required for a motor oil to meet.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-En...Mobil_1_Brochure.pdf

Honda tested several synthetic oils a few years ago and most failed miserably on the TEOST test. Amsoil probably would have done well, although when I asked why their ASL 5w30 was not recommended for HTO-06 they told me it might need a "booster" oook. They only recommend SSO for this spec.

If it wasn't for Mobil 1 being such a good oil and readily available, I'd probably be more inclined to use Amsoil. I've used Amsoil in the past and for my personal application it never outperformed Mobil 1.

quote:
Not All Oils Are Created Equal
Not all synthetic oils meet Acura’s HTO-06 standard.
In fact, using the wrong oil in a high-performance
turbocharged engine leads to accumulated deposits
in the engine, which reduces performance and
causes engine wear. In exhaustive testing conducted
by Acura engineers, Mobil 1 produced no critical
deposits on critical engine components such as
the seal ring, shaft, and the turbo walls.
Too bad Mobil 1 5W30 off the shelf got caught failing the test for certification after it was certified. But several other certified oils have also.
Last edited by timvipond
T timvipondMember
I'd like to clarify a few things.
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
I was, in fact, a previous Amsoil dealer and quit because I don't buy into the pyramid scheme of Amsoil and the way they do business.
Where is this pyramid scheme you talk about? Pyramid schemes have been outlawed for years and AMSOIL has been in business for 38 years. AMSOIL Dealers are independent businessmen who make their money by selling AMSOIL/WIX/Donaldson/Mann-Hummel/NGK/Injen/Mother's products to individuals, retail stores, commercial accounts and government agencies. They can also make some money when their dealers they trained make sales. Sounds like a regular small business to me.

quote:
To Summarize the arguments up to this point:

Amsoil dealers claim that Amsoil filter is the end all filter that lasts up to 25,000 miles or 1 year which ever comes first.

PureONE is one of the best filters that supposedly doesn't last as long (mileage) but does a better job of filtering for the duration of its intended use as compared to Amsoil's EaO. (Filter quality vs. Duration compromise)
I have yet to see any independent data to confirm that PureONE does a better job of filtering than the AMSOIL filter.

quote:
What if one doesn't drive anywhere near 25,000miles in one year duration and is it not economical to go Amsoil if this is the case?
Some quick lubes, independents and dealerships recommend changing oil and filters every 3,000 miles or 3 months, so a minimum of 4 oil filters, where AMSOIL would only require 1 filter, saving time and money and fewer oil filters in the landfill. My Chevy and Ford recommend 3,000 mile filter and oil changes for severe service, where AMSOIL recommends/warranties up 15,000 miles for most vehicles, saving time and money on 4 oil and filter changes.


quote:
Amsoil dealers have to fight or argue against conventional wisdom to sell because that is their job so keep that in mind regardless of what is the best for the end-user. This is how I was taught and this is how they all come.
. No fighting required. When you figure the time and money AMSOIL saves most people, they figure out what is best for them.


quote:
Amsoil has been around for a while now and if this were true then more people would be on the Amsoil team but they aren't because not everyone likes the idea of ordering oil from someone else through a pyramid scheme.
If you don't like ordering through a Dealer, you can order direct from AMSOIL or purchase from a retail store.
Last edited by timvipond
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
MLM. Same difference.
Nope. Big difference. Educate yourself and learn the difference. http://www.amsoil.com/dealer/f...r/pyramid_scheme.pdf MLM is also known as Direct Marketing.

quote:
You can order through Amsoil at a huge mark up after you've seen the dealer prices. Tax and shipping still kills.
The price difference between wholesale (dealer price) and MSRP is only about 20%. For a $10 Preferred Customer Membership you can buy at wholesale for 6 months. When that runs out you can buy at 10% below MSRP. You pay tax on any motor oil. No shipping charge if you pick up at an AMSOIL warehouse.

quote:
You cannot be a successful dealer if you doubt your product which is why I am not sitting on that side of the fence now as the grass is greener on this pasture.
I don't doubt the product as I am a retired Shell Oil chemist.
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:


Tim,

You claim EaOs are better because they use Donaldsons patent.

Where is the independent proof that says that one is the best?

You ask for independent testing of a PureOne.

Let's see Amsoils. (Paying for it makes it dependent.)

And your filter analysis is wrong. I know it is what you have been taught, by a sales guy. Go get an MLA III and then talk to me.


Donaldson tests their filter media for AMSOIL. Independent SouthWest Research Institute also tests AMSOIL's filters.

Any certified lab can verify AMSOIL's claim of 98.7% filter efficiency @15 microns per ISO 4548-12 as publicly stated on every AMSOIL filter box and filter. I'm sure several have, and none have disputed. And none have that level of efficiency and back it up with up to 25,000 mile/1 year warranty. A bit more believable, substantial and documented compared to an " e-mail response from the tech/engineer department" at Purolator. Compare to Purolators oil filter change recommendation "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." Seems pretty clear to me which one is the best.
Last edited by timvipond
L lamontbdumontMember
quote:
Not true. AMSOIL is the only filter that has exclusively licensed Donaldson's proprietary synthetic nanofiber media for cars, light trucks and motorcycles. Thus it is better than any other filter on the market for the combination of filtration, flow, loading capacity, longevity and up to 25,000 miles/1 year warranty.


Hmm, I've always thought of Donaldson as an industrial filter manufacturer. I think they were bought by Parker recently, or did I dream that? There's been some consolidation recently to keep Pall from becoming the 900 lb gorilla.

Regardless, the requirements of industrial filters are much different from automotive filters. Industrial applications are much cooler, but not equivalent.
E ebolamonkeyMember
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
RobertC - Try the Chevy Volt. No oil to change in that car. Smile


Soon as they make one comparable to my Dodge 4x4 Mega cab, Got to carry everything through 10 miles of beach sand to get to the vacation house.

And besides, it'll have bearings that need greasing, or not......


But no more oil at least except maybe for the tranny. Smile
R robertcMember
Brava!!!!!

Of course, I have an issue.

Well, not really, but you kow how it goes.

I work very hard to learn, with many resources not available to most. Well, they're available, but most aren't spending the money on them, so it's the same thing.

Most is a cheap sucker.

I sometimes see issues with carryover at my corporate lab. And they don't have a conveyor feeding the ICP, particle counter, or viscometer.

So that rings very true.

I get 2 kinds of reports. Raw data only, which is a heck of a way to learn, btw.

And results personally interpretted by folks trained personnally by one of the giants of the industry.

I don't send them car stuff though. Because it's not worth the money!

Well, except for that once when my wife decided to let a shop change her S60R's oil w out watching.

As for extending drains, yes, I'll do it in select cases. Non warranty and RULER backed, because I can do those cheap, I understand the limitations, and I am not relying on some drone to tell me what to do.

Lamont, you really ought to be patentable.

There, I just established my claim!
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
So, regarding this wondrous proprietary medium, does Donaldson supply it exclusively to Amsoil, period, or is Amsoil the only automotive marketer? Is Amsoil's exclusively use of this medium based on the fact that no one else finds this medium particularly special for automotive applications? If this stuff is that good, you'd think that Donaldson would have shopped it around to marketers with more market-share so they could sell more of it.
Donaldson made an exclusive agreement with AMSOIL to provide this synthetic nanofiber filtration media for automotive, light truck and motorcycle applications.

As to why the other oil and filter companies do not make a 25,000 mile synthetic nanofiber filter, you'll have to ask them. My guess is they feel they make more money selling more 3,000 mile filters (PureOnes recommendation) than 25,000 mile filters.
Last edited by timvipond
E ebolamonkeyMember
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
Donaldson made an exclusive agreement with AMSOIL to provide this synthetic nanofiber filtration media for automotive, light truck and motorcycle applications.


Everything these days can be considered Nano which weren't Nano 10 or 20 years ago but they were the same size then as they are now being 1-100nm (nanometers). For instance Carbon Black is Carbon Black but now-a-days you can get research money if you tie in "nano" to whatever it is you want to do so instead of saying Carbon Black which everyone already knows about you put "Nano Carbon Particles."

This gimmick works in academia and unfortunately also for consumers who are not aware of such marketing schemes.

On another note please look at the following images:

(Nanofiber - Go Ches Cain! not)

(Web-like appearance with reference (length) scale)

("Nano" fiber arrangement without length scale)

("Traditional" cellulose media without length scale)

How does a bunch of lines turn into a web-like structure when the apparent size of the cellulose substrate is smaller on the lines as compared to the web-like picture? I am confused.

BTW, PureONE is #1!
http://www.bestcovery.com/puro...r-pureone-oil-filter

Smile
Last edited by ebolamonkey
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
Tim, you repeated a re-phrased version the original assertion without providing any of the requested detail. There's no point in responding until you have some news.

'I don't know' is always an acceptable answer when it happens to be the truth. It's always stood me well.
What specifically did you want to know?
T timvipondMember
Your theory is all wrong. The large particles just sit on the surface of the nanofiber web. Since the nanofiber web has several times the number of pores and surface area compared to a microfiber web, it can trap more particles yet provide more flow. Donaldson has done extended oil filter intervals for 20 years with this design and AMSOIL has marketed extended 25,000 mile oil filter extended change intervals for 5 years for autos, light trucks and up to 15,000 miles in motorcycles. And SouthWest Research Institute in San Antonio has extensively tested these filters. They work as advertised. Thousands of used oil analysis also confirm.
R robertcMember
Ebola, can't you see?

Large particles sit on top of the media in a Donaldson paptent amsoil Ea filter. They never bridge or agglonmerate.

You see, they know they're trapped by a magical filter, and they'd never impede flow in any logical way.

It's magic. You need to just press the "I believe" button.

And remember, Eas are good for 25,000. PureOnes for 3,000.

Except when they're not.

You think msoil marketers get togther and sing songs like Mary Kay people do?
E ebolamonkeyMember
Again I have to call attention to two diagrams:



and Figure 3 on this pdf: http://www.asia.donaldson.com/...talibrary/050272.pdf

2nd picture is twice the magnification of the first but the two looks fundamentally different. If you reduce the size of the Figure 3 from the PDF and transpose or do a side-to side comparison you will find it very difficult to get a good match.

There is also something inconsistent between the graph show on the PDF and Amsoil's numbers in filtration efficiency. Look at Figure 4 on the PDF and compare it to these numbers:



Amsoil is still nominal at 7 microns but here it shows that a nanofiber oil filter is nominal between 0.00 and 0.20 microns. How does that work?
R robertcMember
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
No magic. The much smaller nanofibers just filter better than microfibers, hold more particles, and flow better as explained: http://www.asia.donaldson.com/...talibrary/050272.pdf . And patented: http://www.google.com/patents?...v=onepage&q=&f=false .


The paper is for air filters. Not directly applicable. else we'd be seeing depth media air filters, but we don't.

As for patents. No proof of workability is required. Perpetual motion machines have patents.

Means nothing.

AND, since the patent covers air filtration, how does it apply to oil?

Is the spun coating tough enough to stand the flow regime?

Compare and contrast:
Velocities
Volume
Fluid dynamics is what I am after

Particle make up

Forces applied by the fluid. (Consider air a fluid in this case)
Last edited by robertc
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
No magic. The much smaller nanofibers just filter better than microfibers, hold more particles, and flow better as explained: http://www.asia.donaldson.com/...talibrary/050272.pdf . And patented: http://www.google.com/patents?...v=onepage&q=&f=false .


The paper is for air filters. Not directly applicable. else we'd be seeing depth media air filters, but we don't.
Similar synthetic nanofiber media. Similar results.

quote:
As for patents. No proof of workability is required. Perpetual motion machines have patents.

Means nothing.
Donaldson has proven the technology 20 years. You can prove it to yourself with extended oil drains and UOA.

quote:
AND, since the patent covers air filtration, how does it apply to oil?
Similar synthetic nanofiber media, similar results. Proven by 20 years of used oil analysis.

quote:
Is the spun coating tough enough to stand the flow regime?
. Of course. Proven for the past 20 years by Donaldson, 5 years by AMSOIL. Tested by Independent World Renown SouthWest Research Institute .

quote:
Compare and contrast:
Velocities
Volume
Fluid dynamics is what I am after

Particle make up

Forces applied by the fluid. (Consider air a fluid in this case)
These are automotive, truck and motorcycle filters. So the fluid dynamics would be in those ranges. Also defined by ISO 4548-12. Donaldson is the expert. The technology has proven itself for 20 years. Contact them for more details.
Last edited by timvipond
E ebolamonkeyMember
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
Donaldson is the expert. The technology has proven itself for 20 years. Contact them for more details.


Aka you don't know. Just say so, contact them on behave of us to find out these questions we raised, post the reply e-mail and be done with it. Is that so hard to do or do you simply not want to admit that you just don't know the answers for which we seek? I am guessing the latter because good ole Lamont B Dumont hasn't chimed in since his last post.
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
Donaldson is the expert. The technology has proven itself for 20 years. Contact them for more details.


Aka you don't know. Just say so, contact them on behave of us to find out these questions we raised, post the reply e-mail and be done with it. Is that so hard to do or do you simply not want to admit that you just don't know the answers for which we seek? I am guessing the latter because good ole Lamont B Dumont hasn't chimed in since his last post.
I don't know what? If you want more details than are readily available and might be proprietary, contact the manufacturer of the media (Donaldson). The media has proven itself for 20 years, so I am satisfied it works as advertised. If you aren't, you can contact Donaldson with your specific questions.
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
Amsoil is still nominal at 7 microns but here it shows that a nanofiber oil filter is nominal between 0.00 and 0.20 microns. How does that work?
You seem to be confused again in thinking a nominal rating is 1/2 of the measured efficiency of a filter. Nominal ratings of filters are just the average pore size in the media as measured with a micrometer. Due to poor reproducibility, this measurement is pretty much meaningless.

The AMSOIL full flow synthetic nanofiber oil filter will filter some submicron particles for up to 25,000 miles, the AMSOIL synthetic nanofiber bypass filter will filter more up to 60,000 miles, and the AMSOIL synthetic nanofiber air filter will also filter less than 1 micron particles for up to 100,000 miles.

Have you guys not read the Ea synthetic nanofiber filter brochure at http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2202.pdf ?
Last edited by timvipond
L lamontbdumontMember
quote:
Donaldson is the expert


Really, "the" (not "an") expert? So nobody at Pall, Fram, Purolator, Baldwin, Hastings, Parker Hannifin, Wix or any other filter manufacturer knows anything of value about filter media? Their filters are all crap?

I don't deny that Donaldson has some folks who know a little bit about filtration. I just find it more than a little insulting that Tim insists that Donaldson is the ONLY company that knows anything of value.

But that ignorant attitude is consistent with the Amsoil Insecurity. It's not enough to say "This is a good product that, used properly, can extend the life of your engine relative to conventional mineral-based oils." Instead we get bombarded with this sad, needy insistence that "The brand I sell is not only the best, it's the only one that is any good at all!"

Data is cherry-picked to 'support' the wild claims and anyone who brings conflicting data forward is demonized.

It's a bit like applying the techniques of a store-front Fundamentalist preacher to lubricant sales: "Buy this oil lest you condemn your engine to everlasting damnation!"
T timvipondMember
quote:
Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
quote:
Donaldson is the expert


Really, "the" (not "an") expert?
Really. Donaldson is the expert on their synthetic nanofiber filters. You really think someone at Fram knows as much about Donaldson's synthetic nanofiber filters as Donaldson?
quote:
I don't deny that Donaldson has some folks who know a little bit about filtration. I just find it more than a little insulting that Tim insists that Donaldson is the ONLY company that knows anything of value.
Please show where I've ever insisted that.

quote:
But that ignorant attitude is consistent with the Amsoil Insecurity.
Never heard of that one before. Why would AMSOIL be insecure? They make the best oil with the longest extended parts and labor warranty in the business. No one else comes close or proven otherwise. AMSOIL is the "First in Synthetics" The others fall behind. They increase sales every year while the others lose sales.
quote:
It's not enough to say "This is a good product that, used properly, can extend the life of your engine relative to conventional mineral-based oils." Instead we get bombarded with this sad, needy insistence that "The brand I sell is not only the best, it's the only one that is any good at all!"
I've never heard that the other brands were no good at all. I've always maintained that if you follow the manufactures specifications for oil and filters, you'll be fine. But if you want to extend you oil and filter changes, then AMSOIL has the longest and best parts and labor warranty in the business and really the only game in town.

quote:
Data is cherry-picked to 'support' the wild claims and anyone who brings conflicting data forward is demonized.
What data was cherry picked? None of the other oil or filter companies have mentioned this or said AMSOIL's data was incorrect.

quote:
It's a bit like applying the techniques of a store-front Fundamentalist preacher to lubricant sales: "Buy this oil lest you condemn your engine to everlasting damnation!"
Never heard of this from AMSOIL, but the AMSOIL haters usually say this when they run out of arguments against the product.
Last edited by timvipond
L lamontbdumontMember
Tim - Fred Astair had nothing on you; you dance dance around, hitting your intended marks and avoiding the soft spots at will. Donaldson is the best because they know the most about their own technology? Fram is no good because they aren't experts on Donaldson's technology?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that makes you sound?

While there's been darn little useful information presented, I do enjoy your Daffy-esque sputtering gyrations, they are quite entertaining.

Definitely "Duck Season".
E ebolamonkeyMember
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
Amsoil is very smart.

Thay never publish data where they can be criticized.

They also don't seem to publish the raw data.

That is cherry picking.


And this differs from any other oil company in what way?


they aren't on here trying to dispute it.


So then you admit that Amsoil DOES indeed cherry pick data!
P pabloMember
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.
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.
Next
Post

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.
×