Skip to main content

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

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".
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Particle Count Data Point: P1 vs EaO
Ericm Offline


Registered: 02/21/05
Posts: 53
Loc: CA
Another particle count data point.
I ran a Pure One filter for 4000 miles. I pulled an oil sample, then changed to an EaO filter without adding any new oil. I ran the EaO for 549 more miles and pulled the second sample.

IMPORTANT NOTE: IT LOOKS AS IF THE EaO SAMPLE MAY HAVE BEEN MISTAKENLY CONTAMINATED WITH ADDTIONAL DIRT BASED ON A HIGH SILICON READING.
(More Details at end of post.)

Filter__P1___________EaO

Miles
on
Filter_4042___________549

Miles
On Oil_4042__________4591

Make up
Oil_____1.0 qt________none

Particle
Count
(microns)
>5u____17159_______19501
>10u_____427_________474
>15u______49__________60
>20u______20__________25
>25u______11__________15
>50u_______2___________2
>75u_______0___________0
>100u______0___________0

Fe
Debris_____15__________15

ISO______21/13_______21/13

Particle
Volume_____2__________2

Anti
Freeze____Pos*_______Trace*

Water_____Pos**_______Neg

Fuel_______Neg________Neg

Elements
PPM
Cu_____1____________1
Fe_____2____________2
Cr_____0____________0
Ni_____0____________0
Ti_____0____________0
V______0___________0
Ag_____0___________0
Pb_____4___________2
Sn_____3___________0
Al______2___________2
Si______5__________16
Na_____3___________5
K_______0___________0
Mo____118__________96
B_____109_________116
Ba______0___________2
Ca___1994________1856
Mg______0___________0
Mn______2___________2
P_____946_________898
Sb______2___________7
Zn___1093________1005

Viscosity: 16.0 cst
Oil type: Chevron Supreme 20w-50

* According to Butler Cat Lab the glycol test is extremely sensitive and may be a false positive.
** According to Lab the presence of water was low enough for a particle count to be taken. Water is counted as particles and will add to PC.

A laser type particle counter was used. (The lab did not dilute the samples for particle counting).

Vehicle is 1993 Geo Metro XFi. Total mileage at end of test was approx. 270,072.
Filters were extra large oversize: Purolator PL30001 and EaO 15.

Sampling procedure: Used rigid polyethylene tubing, otherwise the same as:
http://theoildrop.server101.co.../s...true#Post866529

I think dirt contamination was introduced into the EaO sample possibly during the filter change due to wind blown dust (it took a while to pour oil from P1 filter into the EaO).
I don’t think contamination occurred during sampling because I believe this would have raised the particle count of the larger particles in the 50, 75, and 100 micron range as well as the smaller sizes. It looks to me as though the EaO filter removed these larger sizes before sampling.

Sorry about that. I got impatient and changed over to the EaO filter on a windy afternoon. Should have waited for a calm weekend morning, when I normally change oil.

Comments welcome.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
Particle Count Data Point: P1 vs EaO
Ericm Offline


Registered: 02/21/05
Posts: 53
Loc: CA
Another particle count data point.
I ran a Pure One filter for 4000 miles. I pulled an oil sample, then changed to an EaO filter without adding any new oil. I ran the EaO for 549 more miles and pulled the second sample.

IMPORTANT NOTE: IT LOOKS AS IF THE EaO SAMPLE MAY HAVE BEEN MISTAKENLY CONTAMINATED WITH ADDTIONAL DIRT BASED ON A HIGH SILICON READING.
(More Details at end of post.)

Filter__P1___________EaO

Miles
on
Filter_4042___________549

Miles
On Oil_4042__________4591

Make up
Oil_____1.0 qt________none

Particle
Count
(microns)
>5u____17159_______19501
>10u_____427_________474
>15u______49__________60
>20u______20__________25
>25u______11__________15
>50u_______2___________2
>75u_______0___________0
>100u______0___________0

Fe
Debris_____15__________15

ISO______21/13_______21/13

Particle
Volume_____2__________2

Anti
Freeze____Pos*_______Trace*

Water_____Pos**_______Neg

Fuel_______Neg________Neg

Elements
PPM
Cu_____1____________1
Fe_____2____________2
Cr_____0____________0
Ni_____0____________0
Ti_____0____________0
V______0___________0
Ag_____0___________0
Pb_____4___________2
Sn_____3___________0
Al______2___________2
Si______5__________16
Na_____3___________5
K_______0___________0
Mo____118__________96
B_____109_________116
Ba______0___________2
Ca___1994________1856
Mg______0___________0
Mn______2___________2
P_____946_________898
Sb______2___________7
Zn___1093________1005

Viscosity: 16.0 cst
Oil type: Chevron Supreme 20w-50

* According to Butler Cat Lab the glycol test is extremely sensitive and may be a false positive.
** According to Lab the presence of water was low enough for a particle count to be taken. Water is counted as particles and will add to PC.

A laser type particle counter was used. (The lab did not dilute the samples for particle counting).

Vehicle is 1993 Geo Metro XFi. Total mileage at end of test was approx. 270,072.
Filters were extra large oversize: Purolator PL30001 and EaO 15.

Sampling procedure: Used rigid polyethylene tubing, otherwise the same as:
http://theoildrop.server101.co.../s...true#Post866529

I think dirt contamination was introduced into the EaO sample possibly during the filter change due to wind blown dust (it took a while to pour oil from P1 filter into the EaO).
I don’t think contamination occurred during sampling because I believe this would have raised the particle count of the larger particles in the 50, 75, and 100 micron range as well as the smaller sizes. It looks to me as though the EaO filter removed these larger sizes before sampling.

Sorry about that. I got impatient and changed over to the EaO filter on a windy afternoon. Should have waited for a calm weekend morning, when I normally change oil.

Comments welcome.


To have run an accurate test,the amsoil filter should have had the same/similar milage. You pulled it with only 549 miles. You are comparing a semi loaded P1 media with a new relative clean media. The new amsoil media filtered particulates almost as good as a loaded P1 media. The P1 also restricts more as well.

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!
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.
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
Cellulose media has a wide variance in pour distribution. The synthetic medias ..especially the Nanofiber and SYNTEQ processes merely spin/spray a web of filaments that provide depth. Enough filaments, higher numbers/longer life.

You can't look at filter life in terms of miles. It's always in terms of the filter material it sees. That's MAINLY dictated by the warm up fuel enriched miles. The rest warmed up miles will be loaded at a MUCH lower rate with oxidized components that will fatigue.

So, just about any filter will go 15k at some variable level of filtration. The GM OLM doesn't say "If your OLM tells you to change the oil @ 12k, you are too late and should have known to buy ONLY an EAO or PureOne, or M1 filter. Silly consumer". No, it's pegging the filter life to the oil life on the high end.

Filter fatigue and oil fatigue don't plot the same curves, at least always. Once you get above a certain mileage per interval, the loading due to insolubles makes the other mileage MOSTLY invisible.

I've tested PureOne's with 9k on them and at cold start, with heavy oil and the oil pump in relief, there was elevated PSID across it. It was transitional with the retreat of the pump relief event. This happens with any filter, even brand new.
Doesn't a filter spend a good part of its life in bi-pass? What happens when an engine is stone cold pushing 60-80 psi of oil pressure? How about 45 psi cruising at 70 on the highway? Is the oil getting filtered at all? We had this discussion at work a few days ago and a mechanic posed that question and left a few of us scratching our heads. I don't think the filter plays as important a role as most people think.

AD
So the highly flow restrictive PureONE failed at only 5,000 miles/six months and has no media reinforcement? Seems like Purolator's 3,000 mile/3 month recommendation should have been followed in this case. So for my 4 vehicles, driving conditions and following Purolator's and my vehicle oil change recommendations, I should use 20 PureONES a year instead of 4 AMSOIL EaO filters? No thanks...
I wouldn't write the P1 filter off just yet. P1 vs. EaO filters, my guess is for every EaO filter sold Purolator probably sells 1,000 filters. My point is a bad filter could have gotten by. I'm sure there are bad EaO filters too. Things happen, Toyota gas pedal recall ring a bell? Up until recently Toyota was highly respected.

As a side bar- Amsoil had issues with the EaO on Toyota vehicles.

AD
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
I wouldn't write the P1 filter off just yet. P1 vs. EaO filters, my guess is for every EaO filter sold Purolator probably sells 1,000 filters. My point is a bad filter could have gotten by. I'm sure there are bad EaO filters too.
Maybe. I've sold thousands of EaO. Haven't heard of a bad one yet. Besides, if I have to buy and install 20 PureONE filters instead of 4 AMSOIL EaO's, that alone writes them off my list.

quote:
As a side bar- Amsoil had issues with the EaO on Toyota vehicles.

AD
The only issue AMSOIL has is they recommend following the new required oil filter change intervals to be covered under the Toyota extended warranty for the sludge prone engines, instead of the 25,000 mile/1 year recommendation. AMSOIL recommends the Mann filter for up to 7500 miles to save the consumer money and to meet the new Toyota oil filter change interval warranty requirements.
Last edited by timvipond
I guess you're an Amsoil dealer? They make some fine products. My father and uncle are mechanics, used 1000's of Pure One filters, cut open their fair share of them too. No problems. For 1 year or 12,000 mile OCI's a Pure One or Mobil 1 filter would be up to the task, and probably trap more dirt than one EaO filter. We can respectfully have different views. Either way it would be tough to prove. JMO

AD
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
I wouldn't write the P1 filter off just yet. P1 vs. EaO filters, my guess is for every EaO filter sold Purolator probably sells 1,000 filters. My point is a bad filter could have gotten by. I'm sure there are bad EaO filters too. Things happen, Toyota gas pedal recall ring a bell? Up until recently Toyota was highly respected.

As a side bar- Amsoil had issues with the EaO on Toyota vehicles.

AD



I wrote the P1 off a long time ago. That's why I use the AMSOIL,..or the bosch distance which is basically an improved P1. I will also use the fram x2(10k filter) on occasion because it won't clog like the P1.

My top choices being amsoil,bosch distance, fleetguard stratapore,and m1 made by champion.

Advance auto or auto zone now sells the bosh distance. Cost is about $12 or $13 and well worth it.

The P1 is too restrictive,clogs too often, and bypasses. A $6 waste if you ask me and not worth the risk.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
I guess you're an Amsoil dealer? They make some fine products. My father and uncle are mechanics, used 1000's of Pure One filters, cut open their fair share of them too. No problems. For 1 year or 12,000 mile OCI's a Pure One or Mobil 1 filter would be up to the task, and probably trap more dirt than one EaO filter. We can respectfully have different views. Either way it would be tough to prove. JMO

AD


You're missing the point with the amsoil filter. The question you have to ask is what is it doing at it's half life. Simple,it is filtering far better than the P1 overall....removing more dirt,smaller dirt particulates and with much less restriction across the media.

If you had for example....two cars side by side each driven say 150k. One with the P1 and the other with the EA amsoil filter changed at between 15k and 25k vs the pure one filter changed more often......

The engine with the amsoil depth filter would see less wear over the long haul and that is the ultimate goal in the first place.

  
Who wants to keep changing filters constantly if you don't need to? Why use a restrictive filter??

Remember,the P1 is not a depth filter...that's the issue.....it has to be changed much more often because it clogs,resticts,and bypasses.

The best choice is always the depth filter with the backing support screen because it works far better over the long haul and doesn't bypass nearly as often. Ever cut one open?

There simply is no contest about which filter is better!


quote:
1000's of P1 filters. Who's the dealer now!!
Last edited by captainkirk
IMO the Amsoil filter is trapping less dirt up until its half life, possibly letting twice the smaller particles through early on. Then when it starts to load up it starts to filter more efficiently, but it took half its life to get there. You're only talking about changing the Pure One filter twice in 25,000 miles, and the cost of the two filters is still less than one Amsoil filter.

AD
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
IMO the Amsoil filter is trapping less dirt up until its half life, possibly letting twice the smaller particles through early on. Then when it starts to load up it starts to filter more efficiently, but it took half its life to get there.
Isn't this basically true for any filter? Filters become more efficient up until they go into bypass. If I had to use 5 PureONE filters, this would happen 5 times compared to once with the AMSOIL EaO.
quote:
You're only talking about changing the Pure One filter twice in 25,000 miles, and the cost of the two filters is still less than one Amsoil filter.
For my vehicles (and many other vehicles that do towing, dirt roads, short trips, idling, etc), I would have to change 5 PureONES for every AMSOIL EaO to meet my vehicle, PureOne's and AMSOIL's recommendations. The poor guy with the Honda had very little filtration when the PureONE failed after only 5,000 miles (it could have happened much sooner). I just don't see how a PureONE oil restrictive, microfiber media without support that lasts 1/5th as long as a nanofiber, less restrictive, media supported filter, is the better filter.
Last edited by timvipond
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
IMO the Amsoil filter is trapping less dirt up until its half life, possibly letting twice the smaller particles through early on. Then when it starts to load up it starts to filter more efficiently, but it took half its life to get there. You're only talking about changing the Pure One filter twice in 25,000 miles, and the cost of the two filters is still less than one Amsoil filter.

AD


I never said the amsoil filter was letting more dirt through up until half life. I said to imagine just how much better at the half life. If I'm not mistaken,..filter efficiency is based on half life or something along those lines.

It has been proven industry wide that changing any filter, oil,fuel,air,etc. too often too soon is actually a detriment to the efficiency of the filter. It causes more wear,not less.

Even when new,...the difference between the amsoil and the P1 related to initial particle size is basically splitting hairs....With the exception being that the P1 is more restrictive even when new.

The amsoil filter gets better long before it's half life,and is at a very high standard when new,it's been proven. Someone on bitog ran a test to back that as I recall.

If you are that concerned/paranoid about particulates....then I would recommend you put your fears to rest and install a bypass filtration system. It will filter done to One micron or better in some cases.

By installing a good synthetic oil and using a good depth filter.....just how long do you think your engine will last. You will probably never wear it out. The car will fall apart around the engine. How many cars are junked with still running engines?

The depth filter makes the most practical and economic sense and does an amazing job at keeping the oil very clean with extended OCI..... including from the start of the oil change.
I think we might agree here. With all the time filters spend in Bi-pass engines last a very long time, for the guy that keeps a car to 200,000 miles any filter will do. Odds are the car will shake itself apart and rot before the engine fails.

You say & I agree.

Quote:If you are that concerned/paranoid about particulates....then I would recommend you put your fears to rest and install a bypass filtration system. It will filter done to One micron or better in some cases.

By installing a good synthetic oil and using a good depth filter.....just how long do you think your engine will last. You will probably never wear it out. The car will fall apart around the engine. How many cars are junked with still running engines?

____________________________________

Tim there was a thread running on Bitog about a poor guy running an Amsoil filter in a Toyota engine that failed. % wise the one P1 failure is tiny for all the Purolator filters in use. We should be seeing junkyards teaming with destroyed engines from P1 filters, not so.
quote:

Tim there was a thread running on Bitog about a poor guy running an Amsoil filter in a Toyota engine that failed. % wise the one P1 failure is tiny for all the Purolator filters in use. We should be seeing junkyards teaming with destroyed engines from P1 filters, not so.
Do you have a link?

The one Pablo posted a link to was a 2004 Honda Element. These are known to be very easy on oil filters, and only recommend filter changes every other oil change. I'm not sure there is a vehicle made that is easier on oil filters.

There have only been a few P1 filters opened at Bitog, and this one of those failed at or before 5,000 miles, so we don't know the failure is tiny. In fact, based on those opened, it seems quite high. He didn't know it failed until he opened it. Since it is a highly restrictive filter with no media support, I'm not too surprised of the failure. And not sure a torn filter media would destroy an engine as his was still running, but likely has increased wear. I don't see how this filter is better than the EaO in design, construction, performance or longevity.
Last edited by timvipond
Hello Tim,

Let me first say everything I read on the WWW is taken under advisement. I like Amsoil, but they do spend a lot of money promoting their product, and a lot of their claims I also take under advisement, with an open mind.

Here is the Amsoil / Toyota thread. As you can see people attacked and defended Amsoil, casting some doubt.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...=1819180#Post1819180



This thread is interesting showing Fram as one of the best filters for Flow. We know the deal with Fram. Truth is after reading through most of the the thread it seemed, at least to me that they never perfected the test. But still a lot of time and effort went into it.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...Number=314996&page=1

Cheers!

AD
Amusing little "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" exercise, but are you guys aware that you're talking about passenger car engine filtration? It's not exactly a GE Frame 7FA. This is like the letters to Dear Abby where I find myself asking "Is that really the biggest problem you have? Can we trade lives?"

It's such a low severity application that really any filter you pull off of the shelf with the right gasket diameter & thread size will serve. There are guys who go to Home Depot & buy $200 worm-drive saws when all they are going to do is cut a coupla-three 2x4s. Is that saw "better" than a $50 Black & Decker? You can make that argument based on specs, but in this case paying 4x the price does not provide 4x the value.

I call it "Tim Allen Syndrome". You're all assuming that the highest level of overkill is called for in every application. A fool & his money are soon parted. The smart money tries to find the sweet spot.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Hello Tim,

Let me first say everything I read on the WWW is taken under advisement. I like Amsoil, but they do spend a lot of money promoting their product, and a lot of their claims I also take under advisement, with an open mind.

Here is the Amsoil / Toyota thread. As you can see people attacked and defended Amsoil, casting some doubt.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...=1819180#Post1819180

Thanks for the link.

Inside that link was another to the original poster's remarks from another website. Seems like he only contacted the dealer that sold him the filter, and not AMSOIL. Had he contacted AMSOIL, they would have had him submit a claim, and ship the filter and oil to AMSOIL for evaluation. The only "evidence" that the filter clogged and caused the problem was a remark from the Toyota dealership, who I doubt did a thorough investigation of the actual cause. If AMSOIL thought the filter could have caused the problem, they would have immediately paid for parts and repairs. If later, AMSOIL can prove the filter did not cause the problem, they would seek reimbursement from Toyota.

Also, a dealership can not deny warranty claims. Only the manufacturer can do that. And the reason has to be stated in writing, which I did not find.
Last edited by timvipond
Like I said internet stories are always taken under advisement. I'm not sure how Amsoil would have handled it, my gut tells me it would have been a volleyball game, bouncing blame back and forth, which is typical in the automotive business. But then again I have no experience with Amsoil or Toyota so it is just gut feeling.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Like I said internet stories are always taken under advisement. I'm not sure how Amsoil would have handled it, my gut tells me it would have been a volleyball game, bouncing blame back and forth, which is typical in the automotive business. But then again I have no experience with Amsoil or Toyota so it is just gut feeling.
I think you shouldn't listen to your gut in this case. Listen to the facts and history. AMSOIL has handled several claims in 38 years and it is done as I described. No bouncing back and forth. No long drawn out battles. Handled very quickly. When in doubt, AMSOIL pays and later seeks reimbursement when they can prove their products did not fail.

PureONES are good filters. I just don't believe they are better than the EaOs.
Last edited by timvipond
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
Yes filters do go into by-pass - another argument against overly viscous oils. Some folks on BITOG years back thought of OF's as failed parts sieves. Only there to catch junk - after the failure. There is some logic in this camp.

As for P1 - people seem to defend this OF as strongly as some other top brands. This one looks marginal:

P1 pics


There goes Pablo the Amsoil salesman again showing us a Pure One Pic and saying its marginal. How do you arrive at this conclusion that the pics are marginal, are you an Oil Filter Expert.

What exactly is your AGENDA here on Noria, and since you are an Amsoil Salesman I do not think we can buy anything you are saying.

If someone posted a pic of an Amsoil EaO Oil Filter you would probably say it looks GREAT.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Like I said internet stories are always taken under advisement. I'm not sure how Amsoil would have handled it, my gut tells me it would have been a volleyball game, bouncing blame back and forth, which is typical in the automotive business. But then again I have no experience with Amsoil or Toyota so it is just gut feeling.
I think you shouldn't listen to your gut in this case. Listen to the facts and history. AMSOIL has handled several claims in 38 years and it is done as I described. No bouncing back and forth. No long drawn out battles. Handled very quickly. When in doubt, AMSOIL pays and later seeks reimbursement when they can prove their products did not fail.

PureONES are good filters. I just don't believe they are better than the EaOs.


Wow Amsoil must have some legal department and a lot of faith to pay out then seek reimbursement. It doesn't add up. I'm sure many a car has sat waiting for a decision if the repair cost was major. No one pays out w/o investigation and trying to defend their product.

AD
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Like I said internet stories are always taken under advisement. I'm not sure how Amsoil would have handled it, my gut tells me it would have been a volleyball game, bouncing blame back and forth, which is typical in the automotive business. But then again I have no experience with Amsoil or Toyota so it is just gut feeling.
I think you shouldn't listen to your gut in this case. Listen to the facts and history. AMSOIL has handled several claims in 38 years and it is done as I described. No bouncing back and forth. No long drawn out battles. Handled very quickly. When in doubt, AMSOIL pays and later seeks reimbursement when they can prove their products did not fail.

PureONES are good filters. I just don't believe they are better than the EaOs.


Wow Amsoil must have some legal department and a lot of faith to pay out then seek reimbursement.
They do.
quote:
It doesn't add up.
Sure it does. Great service + great products + great reputation = great sales. AMSOIL set sales records last year while the motor oil industry suffered a 20% decrease.
quote:
I'm sure many a car has sat waiting for a decision if the repair cost was major. No one pays out w/o investigation and trying to defend their product.
If you are sure, you must have proof. Please provide.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
Yes filters do go into by-pass - another argument against overly viscous oils. Some folks on BITOG years back thought of OF's as failed parts sieves. Only there to catch junk - after the failure. There is some logic in this camp.

As for P1 - people seem to defend this OF as strongly as some other top brands. This one looks marginal:

P1 pics


There goes Pablo the Amsoil salesman again showing us a Pure One Pic and saying its marginal. How do you arrive at this conclusion that the pics are marginal, are you an Oil Filter Expert.

What exactly is your AGENDA here on Noria, and since you are an Amsoil Salesman I do not think we can buy anything you are saying.

If someone posted a pic of an Amsoil EaO Oil Filter you would probably say it looks GREAT.


My agenda = the truth
Your agenda = attacking me with almost every one of your posts, anyone with 1/2 brain can see that.

Did you even look closely at the pictures?
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Like I said internet stories are always taken under advisement. I'm not sure how Amsoil would have handled it, my gut tells me it would have been a volleyball game, bouncing blame back and forth, which is typical in the automotive business. But then again I have no experience with Amsoil or Toyota so it is just gut feeling.
I think you shouldn't listen to your gut in this case. Listen to the facts and history. AMSOIL has handled several claims in 38 years and it is done as I described. No bouncing back and forth. No long drawn out battles. Handled very quickly. When in doubt, AMSOIL pays and later seeks reimbursement when they can prove their products did not fail.

PureONES are good filters. I just don't believe they are better than the EaOs.


Wow Amsoil must have some legal department and a lot of faith to pay out then seek reimbursement.
They do.
quote:
It doesn't add up.
Sure it does. Great service + great products + great reputation = great sales. AMSOIL set sales records last year while the motor oil industry suffered a 20% decrease.
quote:
I'm sure many a car has sat waiting for a decision if the repair cost was major. No one pays out w/o investigation and trying to defend their product.
If you are sure, you must have proof. Please provide.


How about you prove it? I mean the part where they first pay out then go after the party at fault.

AD
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
Yes filters do go into by-pass - another argument against overly viscous oils. Some folks on BITOG years back thought of OF's as failed parts sieves. Only there to catch junk - after the failure. There is some logic in this camp.

As for P1 - people seem to defend this OF as strongly as some other top brands. This one looks marginal:

P1 pics


There goes Pablo the Amsoil salesman again showing us a Pure One Pic and saying its marginal. How do you arrive at this conclusion that the pics are marginal, are you an Oil Filter Expert.

What exactly is your AGENDA here on Noria, and since you are an Amsoil Salesman I do not think we can buy anything you are saying.

If someone posted a pic of an Amsoil EaO Oil Filter you would probably say it looks GREAT.


My agenda = the truth
Your agenda = attacking me with almost every one of your posts, anyone with 1/2 brain can see that.

Did you even look closely at the pictures?


Pablo, you are even loosing credibility on BITOG.

My agenda = Exposing Pablo
Your Agenda= Pushing Amsoil Products.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Like I said internet stories are always taken under advisement. I'm not sure how Amsoil would have handled it, my gut tells me it would have been a volleyball game, bouncing blame back and forth, which is typical in the automotive business. But then again I have no experience with Amsoil or Toyota so it is just gut feeling.
I think you shouldn't listen to your gut in this case. Listen to the facts and history. AMSOIL has handled several claims in 38 years and it is done as I described. No bouncing back and forth. No long drawn out battles. Handled very quickly. When in doubt, AMSOIL pays and later seeks reimbursement when they can prove their products did not fail.

PureONES are good filters. I just don't believe they are better than the EaOs.


Wow Amsoil must have some legal department and a lot of faith to pay out then seek reimbursement.
They do.
quote:
It doesn't add up.
Sure it does. Great service + great products + great reputation = great sales. AMSOIL set sales records last year while the motor oil industry suffered a 20% decrease.
quote:
I'm sure many a car has sat waiting for a decision if the repair cost was major. No one pays out w/o investigation and trying to defend their product.
If you are sure, you must have proof. Please provide.


How about you prove it? I mean the part where they first pay out then go after the party at fault. What happens with a hung jury? Who eats it?

AD
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Like I said internet stories are always taken under advisement. I'm not sure how Amsoil would have handled it, my gut tells me it would have been a volleyball game, bouncing blame back and forth, which is typical in the automotive business. But then again I have no experience with Amsoil or Toyota so it is just gut feeling.
I think you shouldn't listen to your gut in this case. Listen to the facts and history. AMSOIL has handled several claims in 38 years and it is done as I described. No bouncing back and forth. No long drawn out battles. Handled very quickly. When in doubt, AMSOIL pays and later seeks reimbursement when they can prove their products did not fail.

PureONES are good filters. I just don't believe they are better than the EaOs.


Wow Amsoil must have some legal department and a lot of faith to pay out then seek reimbursement.
They do.
quote:
It doesn't add up.
Sure it does. Great service + great products + great reputation = great sales. AMSOIL set sales records last year while the motor oil industry suffered a 20% decrease.
quote:
I'm sure many a car has sat waiting for a decision if the repair cost was major. No one pays out w/o investigation and trying to defend their product.
If you are sure, you must have proof. Please provide.


How about you prove it? I mean the part where they first pay out then go after the party at fault. What happens with a hung jury? Who eats it?

AD
Certainly. From a "Lubes n Greases" article: http://www.performanceoiltechn...allarticle_aug05.pdf

"It was later deter-
mined that both paid claims were ulti-
mately the result of manufacturing errors
on behalf of a major automotive OEM.”

I've also read on a forum where a customer had a claim. It was handled quickly and paid for parts/labor, towing and rental car.

If AMSOIL can not determine their products were conclusively not at fault, they have paid anyway. Even if it fell into "grey areas".
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:

My agenda = Exposing Pablo
Your Agenda= Pushing Amsoil Products.


Strange.

You attack. You never provide proof or truth or data or facts. Exposing what? What am I hiding?

And what am I pushing here? I'm not selling. I jumped into the thread because it was crazy ridiculous on both sides.

Why do you have such a big boner for me?
Why do you go personal?
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:

My agenda = Exposing Pablo
Your Agenda= Pushing Amsoil Products.


Strange.

You attack. You never provide proof or truth or data or facts. Exposing what? What am I hiding?

And what am I pushing here? I'm not selling. I jumped into the thread because it was crazy ridiculous on both sides.

Why do you have such a big boner for me?
Why do you go personal?



Pablo, you are an Amsoil salesman so you are the one that needs to show us the proof why the Amsoil EaO Oil Filters are superior to the Pure Ones.

Myself and the other members here do not have to show you anything, we are potential customers and can decide to go down to Wal-Mart and buy an oil filter.

If you want to continue your rant and to take cheap shots at the Pure One Oil Filter, at least have the decency to call your boss at Amsoil and have him run some tests on your oil filter versus the Pure One just like you guys do the 4-Ball Wear Test with Amsoil Motor Oil versus other motor oil's. I am not going to buy some sales pitch from an Amsoil salesman, you want us to buy your Oil Filter, then show us some tests, you want our money, then you show us the proof.
I recall reading an Amsoil rep saying if you run enough tests you get the results you are looking for. I'm sure Amsoil ran tests to get results they were looking for with their filters, as well as their oil, as other co's do.

I think they make some good products, but slowly I'm losing respect for them. Too many reps pushing product is not good IMO for any company.

Just forwarded from a friend some data re: Pure One filters:


http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...16457&Number=1619451


AD
Last edited by adfd1
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
Pablo, you are an Amsoil salesman so you are the one that needs to show us the proof why the Amsoil EaO Oil Filters are superior to the Pure Ones.


I don't get this constant feedback that I'm an Amsoil dealer. Why do you keep doing this??? I've asked a bunch of times in an couple different ways and you never answer my question. It seems odd, that's all.

I never actually said EaO's are superior. If you can find where I said that, I would appreciate it. I am however, challenging the notion that P1's are in all ways superior to EaO's. I've seen it written, but I've seen no substantial data.

quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
Myself and the other members here do not have to show you anything, we are potential customers and can decide to go down to Wal-Mart and buy an oil filter.


I would think if you say P1 is better than EaO, it's just air unless you show some data. I don't really care, I just like to live by facts and truth, just as you try to, I'm sure. If you want to buy OF's at WalMart, it certainly doesn't bother me.

quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
If you want to continue your rant and to take cheap shots at the Pure One Oil Filter, at least have the decency to call your boss at Amsoil and have him run some tests on your oil filter versus the Pure One just like you guys do the 4-Ball Wear Test with Amsoil Motor Oil versus other motor oil's. I am not going to buy some sales pitch from an Amsoil salesman, you want us to buy your Oil Filter, then show us some tests, you want our money, then you show us the proof.


Rant? Please what rant? I have not ranted at all in this thread. Cheap shots? I see a lot of cheap shots at Amsoil in this thread, none at P1.

It's always the 4-ball test. What does that have to do with OF's? Can we consider this a cheap shot from you? No, I'm the one with all the cheap shots.

What sales pitch have I given? Where? When?

I don't think Amsoil will do much more comparison tests outside of ISO-4548-12, because I think they know any non-standard OF tests can give some very misleading results.

Thanks,

Paul
But over the years, so many guys have left the board over stuff like Pablo and Frank posting things that were 100% false- guys like Terry Dyson, the old Castrol spokesman- etc. Guys that contributed a lot of money towards this site, more money than Frank contributes from what I understand. I look around at the guys that were here four, five years ago that used to donate pretty heavily- nobody seems to do that anymore except for the newer guys. A BIG reason is the way Frank and some other senior members were allowed to get away with murder- and a lot of people took offense to it.


Pablo, this was a message I got from a member on BITOG, it seems your untruthful posts as well as Frank Miller's drove away a lot of members from BITOG, you even drove Terry Dyson away when he was posting about Biosyn, you are using this board as well as BITOG for your agenda of getting sales and your Cloak and Dagger Techniques as well as jumping into threads on BITOG that have nothing to do with Amsoil in order to cause doubt and chaos shows me that you do not care what is best for everyone, all you care about is getting another sale. You have the most posts on BITOG, I guess you want to get your name out there as well as having everyone see your Amsoil Logo.
quote:
I recall reading an Amsoil rep saying if you run enough tests you get the results you are looking for


It's called 'selective testing'. Lots of companies do it; it speaks to a remarkably clueless honesty to admit it. I only know of one company where it's considered a firing offense (and that company is obviouly not Amsoil, given that quote).
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
So you think I drove people away from BITOG? That's pretty good.

Terry and I are friends. I can assure you that he didn't leave because of me. It's just more "stuff" from you. Pretty much getting old, I just think you have some continued odd bent. I'm just not sure why.



So this is not just directed at Pablo or anyone who would question me( please do I have no axe or product to promote except my core oil analysis interpretation business!). I'd say my track record is a good one.

Pablo you questioned my recommending RL, LC, etc. and then seeing lower than stellar results from BITOG posted data; well guess what?.... chemistries, raw materials, and formulations change. Cars change, fuels change, the product that worked last year well may be sucking wind today. The only reason you have known most of that is that DYSON ANALYSIS shared it here or on NORIA etc. for nearly 10 years.

Add the fact that the data you see at BITOG is NOT ALWAYS COMPLETE OR COMPREHENSIVE because it either can't be shared or no one paid for it to be shared.

I am still in the game , marbles on the table.

Pablo and others, to date I have not been paid one thin dime for working for RLI yet but I hope too soon. Kids need shoes for school starting here!

Terry

Top


Pablo, so you and Terry are friends, you constantly slammed your friend over his association with Biosyn on the open board, if you really were Terry's friend you would have done everything in a PM, I am not buying what you are saying here about Terry.

I will Cut and Paste a Link so Noria members can see how good of a friend Pablo the Amsoil Salesman was with Terry Dyson.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...Number=974210&page=1
Lots of people on these boards have agendas, that is becoming more and more obvious each and every day. You really dig around don't you bear?

Amsoil made it very easy for anyone who wants to make some extra scratch, especially in hard times. Don't get me wrong I like some of their products, but I think many of them are grossly over rated, and over priced.

AD
Bear - Terry and I have had our public differences. So what? I call them as I see them. NO ONE is perfect. I think I was right about RLI. I raised legitimate questions and one thread does not unmake a friendship.

What is your TRUE agenda? You accuse me of being sneaky and stuff. I rarely send PM's, mainly just respond. I'm right in the open. I guess that's a bad thing now.

Add Reply

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