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.
P pabloMember
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...Number=915831&page=1

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeCLS:


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

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

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

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

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

But wait there's more...

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

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

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT!!


Doesn't mean Amsoil is any better. Smile

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I use them for some things, not others.

And Lamont is right. Thay can be meaningless.

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

But try this,

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

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

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

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

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

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT!!


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

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

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

Everything your company now sells is outdated, except your trans and diff fluid, your grease is still top notch, your powersteering fluid is awesome, but your oil's and oil filters are not up to par.
P pabloMember
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
B bigbearMember
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.
E ebolamonkeyMember
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
T timvipondMember
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.
E ebolamonkeyMember
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.
T timvipondMember
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
A adfd1Member
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
T timvipondMember
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...
A adfd1Member
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
T timvipondMember
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
A adfd1Member
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
C captainkirkMember
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.
C captainkirkMember
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
A adfd1Member
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
T timvipondMember
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
C captainkirkMember
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.
A adfd1Member
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.
T timvipondMember
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
A adfd1Member
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
T timvipondMember
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
A adfd1Member
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.
T timvipondMember
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
B bigbearMember
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.
A adfd1Member
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
T timvipondMember
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.
P pabloMember
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?
A adfd1Member
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
B bigbearMember
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.
A adfd1Member
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
T timvipondMember
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".
P pabloMember
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?
B bigbearMember
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.
A adfd1Member
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
P pabloMember
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
L lamontbdumontMember
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).
B bigbearMember
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
A adfd1Member
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
P pabloMember
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.
B bigbearMember
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
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.



Profile for Pablo
Member #: 502
Title:
Total Posts: 38988
Registered on: 10/28/02 08:00 PM

Add to UBB Buddies | Ignore this user | Add to Watched Users | Show User's Posts


About Me
Birthday: July 24
Homepage: http://oilslubesfilters.com
Occupation: Fully


Pablo, we know your agenda is to cause doubt with any product that is in competition with your Amsoil. It's funny, I did not see Terry mention Gary Allan's name, it seems in Terry's eyes that Gary stayed neutral, but you just have to stir the pot, don't you.

I agree that you are right about the RLI, but it would have been nice if you let other members hammer Terry's product that you accused him of pushing, I guess selling Amsoil is more important than your friendship with Terry.

My agenda is to show everyone the truth as to why you are here, and that is to push Amsoil Products.
L lamontbdumontMember
Capt - My background is primarily industrial, where the replacement of a single bearing can cost more than an entire automobile. So yeah, I will go to my grave thinking all street-legal automotive applications are a little on the wussy side. It's all relative - have you ever seen a lime kiln?

I imagine those little particles can induce wear, assuming they are hard enough. I just don't think they will induce enough to cause the engine to wear out significantly sooner than the rest of the car.

Sludge is a different issue - some engines are more prone to it that others. In those cases, extending the oil change interval is NEVER your friend. But sludge can also extrude through a filter. Short of a BCA or ES 'filter' (and you won't see either of those on a car anytime soon) I'm not sure any filter will help sludge. Yes, if you cut open a filter from an engine with a sludge issue, there will be slduge in it. Don't be fooled, it's only resting there. Change it hot & often if you own one of those.
G garageman402Member
One problem I just encountered with a Pure One filter: there is no bypass (relief) valve in the dome end of a filter that specifies one. I ordered 6 filters from Advance Auto to get the free shipping (along with other filters), and happened to look inside one of them, and there is no bypass in the dome end. The other 5 have them, this item has the same part number on the box and on the sticker on the can. Obviously a manufacturing mistake, but beware.

To add insult to injury, Advance wants me to pay shipping both ways. Getting a refund is not an option, either. Their shipping is $8.66 for a $9.99 filter which would be discounted to $7.99 with their 20% off promo. PLUS shipping to get it there....
G garageman402Member
I emailed Purolator concerning this issue, and they wanted to see the filter. They sent me a pre-paid next-day air shipping kit. When they received it, they disassembled it and determined the incorrect end cap was installed, one without a relief valve. I was assured this was a fluke, that their quality control is usually better than this, and all stock will be inspected.

For my efforts, I received a complimentary case of filters.
R robertcMember
quote:
Originally posted by Herb:
There is a difference between Nominal and Absolute. The Ea will filter better. All you have to do is do the research.


The trouble is not the difference, it is the usage of the words.

And if you have data, don't make me look for it. Post it, please.

(FWIW I think the STLE has a definition, I'll look it up as soon as I can)

definition is in some class material, I did find this

http://www.lenntech.com/librar...-nominal-filters.htm

And a Machinery Lubrication Article that make the excellent points that there is no fixed definition even for absolute or a fixed and agreed measurement method.

So, for me, I'll stick with multipass testing.
Last edited by robertc
H herbMember
Donaldson nanofiber syn media is what is used in the Ea oil filter. It's a Donaldson patent, with a lot of testing done. IMO a company like Amsoil that is coming up on 40 years in business, I believe knows what they are doing. I don't see any other oil filter that has right on the box that states Guaranteed for 25,000 miles just as their oils. If it was not true it would not be on there. If your against such a product don't use it. But when us Dealers "try" to show a product better than one is using, we mostly get slammed for pushing something. Carry on !
R robertcMember
quote:
Originally posted by Herb:
Donaldson nanofiber syn media is what is used in the Ea oil filter. It's a Donaldson patent, with a lot of testing done. IMO a company like Amsoil that is coming up on 40 years in business, I believe knows what they are doing. I don't see any other oil filter that has right on the box that states Guaranteed for 25,000 miles just as their oils. If it was not true it would not be on there. If your against such a product don't use it. But when us Dealers "try" to show a product better than one is using, we mostly get slammed for pushing something. Carry on !


Yes, we slam for pushing a product. Because it gets pushed with no DATA!!!!

I had to find a now deceased guys report on a motorcycle forum to find any trustworthy data on amsoil filters (he did multipass testing and provided all of the data). I know people in his previous company and actually tried to find him before I discovered that he had died.

DATA rules. And remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

So, until then...
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.
×