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
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
Wouldn't percent efficienct by the same, basically, as Beta rating?
Where particles are fed into the oil stream and counted upstream and downstream. Result being a percent efficnency, thus making absolute and nominal claims a red herring?
99..9 beats 98.7. Period.
Where particles are fed into the oil stream and counted upstream and downstream. Result being a percent efficnency, thus making absolute and nominal claims a red herring?
99..9 beats 98.7. Period.
From my investigation M1 and Pure one filters are both better as long as you aren't looking to push them for extended drains. Makes sense too. The Amsoil filters would have to let some of the smaller stuff pass through so they can go the advertised 25K OCI without clogging up. I'd rather trap the smaller stuff too, and change the filter a little more often. The M1 and P1 filters are cheaper too. win, win for me since I don't do extended drains. YMMV.
AD
AD
My thoughts run very close to yours.
So are you saying the Amsoil filter catches 100% of 15 micron particles, 98.7% of the time?
I guess the PureOne catches 50% of 15-20 micron particles 99.9% of the time?
I guess the PureOne catches 50% of 15-20 micron particles 99.9% of the time?
Not at all.
I'm saying nominal and absolute mean nothing when performing a Beta rating test.
I can claim my filter is 1 micron absolute, it means nothing when not tested.
And where does the 50% come from? Are you assuming that nominal means 50%? Again, it means nothing in the face of the particle counts.
I'm saying nominal and absolute mean nothing when performing a Beta rating test.
I can claim my filter is 1 micron absolute, it means nothing when not tested.
And where does the 50% come from? Are you assuming that nominal means 50%? Again, it means nothing in the face of the particle counts.
I was replying to this, the last post on the first page. I (ignorantly) did not realize there was a page 2. My mistake.
FWIW, I want to see a Mobil 1 vs. PureOne Faceoff.
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.
I've never seen nominal = 50% in any real place.
Regardless, the testing makes all claims moot.
Regardless, the testing makes all claims moot.
Beta Ratios for Purolator PureONE are:
5um = B4.8
10um = B50
15um = B1000
20um = B1000
B2 = below 5um
B10 = 6.69um
B20 = >8um
B75 = >11um
B100 = 11.42um
From Brian Crawford, SR Engr, Purolator; 08/14/09.
5um = B4.8
10um = B50
15um = B1000
20um = B1000
B2 = below 5um
B10 = 6.69um
B20 = >8um
B75 = >11um
B100 = 11.42um
From Brian Crawford, SR Engr, Purolator; 08/14/09.
excellent
quote:Originally posted by Greenaccord02:
So are you saying the Amsoil filter catches 100% of 15 micron particles, 98.7% of the time?
I guess the PureOne catches 50% of 15-20 micron particles 99.9% of the time?
This reminds me of that old joke:
"This doohickey works 100% perfectly 67% of the time".
Or from the movie Anchorman,
(Talking about his cologne) "They call it *** Panther. 60% of the time, it works all the time."
(Talking about his cologne) "They call it *** Panther. 60% of the time, it works all the time."
I would say the PureOne because it's the tighter filter in the first place.
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.
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.
I'd rather use the 15,000 severe miles to 25,000 normal mile up to 1 year AMSOIL filter than the 3,000 to 7,500 mile Purolator PureOne filter or the 15,000 normal mile (only if out of factory warranty) Mobil 1 filter.
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.
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.
Me too.quote:Originally posted by RobertC:
I'll never understand why supposedly knowledgalbe people will use an inferior filter.
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:Really, you'll use a 15,000 mile 'severe' filter that does not work as well over a filter that FILTERS better?
Exactly.quote:What is the point of, oh, filtering if you do it wrong?
They've been brainwashed by the oil companies that own quick lubes that promote 3,000 mile oil changes. Whose fault is that?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.
While the EaO is a good filter, it's not a great filter.
I'll sacrifice longevity for effectiveness. Else, why bother?
I'll sacrifice longevity for effectiveness. Else, why bother?
The EaO is a great filter. No question about it.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?
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.
what is the EaOs beta rating?