Skip to main content

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

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

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.
PureOne filters are very good. However I have seen that the filter material is packed very tight in the can, which could as I believe someone may have mentioned cause flow or pressure problems. Shine a light into the Amsoil filter, and you will see that the filter material looks pretty neat. It is a blue gauze looking synthetic material that is actually incased in mesh. Similar to what a K&N air filter looks like.

Also, if anyone has actually picked up and held an Amsoil Ea oil filter, it is shocking how much heavier, and beefer, and just heavy duty the filter is. It is basically like they took the highest quality part from every filter manufacturer and put them together in their own filter. For instance, I have two vehicles that use a Eao15 which is the same as a Ford FL1A or small block ford filter. The Amsoil is about twice as heavy, and it is about impossible to squeeze the canister, and even on the mounting base plate, and threaded area is just much larger gauge metal than other filters. So to say that one is far better than the other, that is hard to say. I would trust the amsoil ea filter for extended drain intervals over the pure one, but I also used the pure one filters for a long time before I started picking up the Ea filters.

jdblya@gmail.com
I'd have to agree that PureOne is a better deal than an EaO in a priceRazzerformance ratio. EaO's were specifically designed to go one year and up to the limits of the new SSO. This will typically fall into 15k or less for most people. Beyond that point, loading isn't a mileage weighted issue since most loading occurs during start up with the combustion byproducts of fuel enrichment.

The test on BITOG is interesting where the M1 filter beat the EaO in 5k pore blockage particle counts. I'm waiting for the 10k figures of like comparison. I think that we'll see the gap closing as the mileage markers increase, at least I hope so. Even significant movement toward parity would suggest that a 15k test would be even better ..and one could speculate that the EaO would still be filtering well when the M1 was approaching saturation.

PureOne is what I would recommend for anyone above 12k/year. I'd probably recommend that even if they used an oil that they only ran for 6months.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
While on the surface I would conclude that both the M1 and P1 are superior to the EaO, you've got to keep multipass ratings in perspective.

The reason this is so is due to the protocol used to rate a filter. The multipass tests required loading of the upstream fluid until the filter is saturated ..aka SHOT.

So you're not dealing with anything absolute right out of the box. You're reaching that level at the end of life.

The nominal rating is more indicative of sensible filter performance.

If you tracked the M1 vs. EaO over 5k and 10k on BITOG, you saw the EaO begin to catch up. The owner wasn't willing to entertain using the 5k or 10k filters over again to determine the performance in 15k-20k range.

The EaO is a 25k/1 year filter under just about all conditions. The M1 is a 15k one year filter where a one year OCI is sensible (which would be probably around 15k) The PureOne is (probably) a 15k/one year filter (same deal).


To make a better example, you could probably use an EaO over 4 or 5 5k OCI's ..3 with the M1 or PureOne. During the first 2, the M1 and PureOne will probably filter better. They're deeper into their lifespan toward saturation. Closer to their multipass rating.

Amsoil needed a ONE YEAR filter to compliment their ONE YEAR lubricants. They no longer needed to have intermediate filter changes to replenish additives. Hence, the EaO.
quote:
Originally posted by GeeAea:
While on the surface I would conclude that both the M1 and P1 are superior to the EaO, you've got to keep multipass ratings in perspective.

The reason this is so is due to the protocol used to rate a filter. The multipass tests required loading of the upstream fluid until the filter is saturated ..aka SHOT.

So you're not dealing with anything absolute right out of the box. You're reaching that level at the end of life.

The nominal rating is more indicative of sensible filter performance.

If you tracked the M1 vs. EaO over 5k and 10k on BITOG, you saw the EaO begin to catch up. The owner wasn't willing to entertain using the 5k or 10k filters over again to determine the performance in 15k-20k range.

The EaO is a 25k/1 year filter under just about all conditions. The M1 is a 15k one year filter where a one year OCI is sensible (which would be probably around 15k) The PureOne is (probably) a 15k/one year filter (same deal).


To make a better example, you could probably use an EaO over 4 or 5 5k OCI's ..3 with the M1 or PureOne. During the first 2, the M1 and PureOne will probably filter better. They're deeper into their lifespan toward saturation. Closer to their multipass rating.

Amsoil needed a ONE YEAR filter to compliment their ONE YEAR lubricants. They no longer needed to have intermediate filter changes to replenish additives. Hence, the EaO.


Which oil filter do you like better, and which oil filter would get clogged with the stuff arx breaks off faster, the Pure One or the EaO.
quote:
Originally posted by GeeAea:
While on the surface I would conclude that both the M1 and P1 are superior to the EaO, you've got to keep multipass ratings in perspective.

The reason this is so is due to the protocol used to rate a filter. The multipass tests required loading of the upstream fluid until the filter is saturated ..aka SHOT.

So you're not dealing with anything absolute right out of the box. You're reaching that level at the end of life.

The nominal rating is more indicative of sensible filter performance.

If you tracked the M1 vs. EaO over 5k and 10k on BITOG, you saw the EaO begin to catch up. The owner wasn't willing to entertain using the 5k or 10k filters over again to determine the performance in 15k-20k range.

The EaO is a 25k/1 year filter under just about all conditions. The M1 is a 15k one year filter where a one year OCI is sensible (which would be probably around 15k) The PureOne is (probably) a 15k/one year filter (same deal).


To make a better example, you could probably use an EaO over 4 or 5 5k OCI's ..3 with the M1 or PureOne. During the first 2, the M1 and PureOne will probably filter better. They're deeper into their lifespan toward saturation. Closer to their multipass rating.

Amsoil needed a ONE YEAR filter to compliment their ONE YEAR lubricants. They no longer needed to have intermediate filter changes to replenish additives. Hence, the EaO.


Non sensical.

Nomimal rating is done via measuring pores under a microscope.

Beta ratings ARE multipass efficiency. With particle counters on stream.

Betas are the standard.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
quote:
Originally posted by GeeAea:
While on the surface I would conclude that both the M1 and P1 are superior to the EaO, you've got to keep multipass ratings in perspective.

The reason this is so is due to the protocol used to rate a filter. The multipass tests required loading of the upstream fluid until the filter is saturated ..aka SHOT.

So you're not dealing with anything absolute right out of the box. You're reaching that level at the end of life.

The nominal rating is more indicative of sensible filter performance.

If you tracked the M1 vs. EaO over 5k and 10k on BITOG, you saw the EaO begin to catch up. The owner wasn't willing to entertain using the 5k or 10k filters over again to determine the performance in 15k-20k range.

The EaO is a 25k/1 year filter under just about all conditions. The M1 is a 15k one year filter where a one year OCI is sensible (which would be probably around 15k) The PureOne is (probably) a 15k/one year filter (same deal).


To make a better example, you could probably use an EaO over 4 or 5 5k OCI's ..3 with the M1 or PureOne. During the first 2, the M1 and PureOne will probably filter better. They're deeper into their lifespan toward saturation. Closer to their multipass rating.

Amsoil needed a ONE YEAR filter to compliment their ONE YEAR lubricants. They no longer needed to have intermediate filter changes to replenish additives. Hence, the EaO.


Non sensical.

Nomimal rating is done via measuring pores under a microscope.

Beta ratings ARE multipass efficiency. With particle counters on stream.

Betas are the standard.


Sure, nominal is a single pass test. The measuring modality is totally irrelevant. I believe their all done via optical laser.


Go and buy the multipass protocol ... You add material until the media is saturated. You don't find the saturation figure and then redo the test at half way and say "Wow, I've got a beta20= "much lower in efficiency than I could advertise".
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
I'd rather use the 15,000 severe miles to 25,000 normal mile up to 1 year AMSOIL filter than the 3,000 to 7,500 mile Purolator PureOne filter or the 15,000 normal mile (only if out of factory warranty) Mobil 1 filter.


People should buy based on getting their money's worth out of a filter. PureOne is a pretty good value. Not many people do the mileage in one year to justify an EaO.

Now a PureOne is a waste over a $3 filter if you're a 3k/3m type ..or even a 6month/6k type unless you're willing to use the filter for one year and change the oil at six months. The lower the mileage, the less sense it makes to use an expensive filter.

Insolubles ..combustion byproducts are what loads a filter. It's not chunks of metal, at least other than the random bigger chunks. The loading depends on the cold starts and fuel enrichment. Longer daily drivers don't produce a proportionate amount of insoluble material on average. The out of enrichment miles are mostly hollow.
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.
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
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
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
what is the EaOs beta rating?

Beta = 75 at 15 microns in accordance with industry standard ISO 4548-12 as performed by world renown independent SouthWest Research Institute in San Antonio, TX.
From http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eao.aspx "Absolute Efficiency
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters (EaO) have the best efficiency rating in the automotive/light-truck market. EaO Filters provide a filtering efficiency in accordance with industry standard ISO 4548-12 of 98.7 percent at 15 microns, while competitive filters containing conventional cellulose media range from 40 to 80 percent efficiency.

Less Restriction
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters have significantly lower restriction than conventional cellulose media filters. Their small synthetic nanofibers trap smaller particles and hold more contaminants, resulting in lower restriction. During cold temperature warm-up periods, an EaO lube filter allows the oil to easily flow through the filter compared to a typical cellulose filter. Lower restriction decreases engine wear.

More Capacity
A filter’s capacity refers to the amount of contaminants it can hold and still remain effective. AMSOIL EaO Filters have a greater capacity for small, wear-causing contaminants than competing filter lines do. In most applications, when used in conjunction with AMSOIL synthetic motor oils in normal service, EaO Filters are guaranteed to remain effective for up to 25,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first."

Of course one of the ways to get even smaller particles filtered out is to use the AMSOIL EaA 100,000 mile air filter which absolute efficiency is 2 microns to keep out larger dirt/dust particles out of the oil in the first place.
Last edited by timvipond
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.
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
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.
I'd probably be willing to wager a nickel or three that Amsoil doesn't manufacture filters. You can buy a lot of private label filters with names ranging from fluid suppliers to parts suppliers to equipment builders, but the filters are manufactured by Wix, Fram, Purolator, or some other company that makes filters.

Amsoil can go to one of these companies and ask about what sort of options exist with regard to media type, pore size, support & flow configurations, just like anyone else who wants to market a private label filter.

But let's not kid ourselves that whoever Amsoil hired to make their filters gave them access to some special, super-secret combination of materials & design that's not available to anyone else who walks in the door. And don't imagine for a minute that design is better than the manufacturer's own top-of-the-line filter.
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
quote:
Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
I'd probably be willing to wager a nickel or three that Amsoil doesn't manufacture filters. You can buy a lot of private label filters with names ranging from fluid suppliers to parts suppliers to equipment builders, but the filters are manufactured by Wix, Fram, Purolator, or some other company that makes filters.

Amsoil can go to one of these companies and ask about what sort of options exist with regard to media type, pore size, support & flow configurations, just like anyone else who wants to market a private label filter.

But let's not kid ourselves that whoever Amsoil hired to make their filters gave them access to some special, super-secret combination of materials & design that's not available to anyone else who walks in the door. And don't imagine for a minute that design is better than the manufacturer's own top-of-the-line filter.
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.
This debate is turning into the battle of Snake oil salesmen. It isn't hard to find out who is a Amsoil dealer from the way some of these responses are phrased. 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.

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)

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?

*Amsoil dealer* - EaO is the best filter out there bar none, use it anyways.
*Conventional economics* - why bother paying the mark up, membership, tax, and shipping if you are going to ditch the car in 2-3 years (statistically)?

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.

Tim Vipond is the voice of Amsoil while RobertC is the voice of conventional wisdom and I am the OP who thinks the following:

Why bother with oil filters if you buy cars that are made to last only 50,000-100,000 miles? Do all the calculations before making such a costly investment such as purchasing Amsoil and buying all sorts of special filters, pre-chargers (pre-lube units), by-pass filters (useless on non-Diesels and useless of Diesels for the most part), and all this other fancy oil by-products.

The world is trying to shift AWAY from oil and all the dependencies and not TOWARDS. Production electric cars are no longer a dream and no longer a dead beat like the EV1 as they are just around the corner with Nissan and Chevy releasing a few in 2011. Once Carbon Taxing kicks in the demand for hybrids and electrics will rise. Argument for Amsoil and oil-company side is that there will always be a demand for oil and by-products but there will be considerably LESS. Sure there will still be fleets and sure there will still be ICE-engines but that is fading. Amsoil dealers and the like will be at each others necks to grab whats left of the remaining customers who either don't have enough money for a hybrid (bogus because the Honda Insight's starting price is around $20k and does 41mpg combined - http://automobiles.honda.com/i...rid/performance.aspx) or econ diesel VW Polo (71mpg diesel).

I don't agree with either Tim Vipond or RobertC 100% because 3000 mile oil change is too extreme as most of the owners manuals says otherwise (5k+) and some cars (GM) that have oil change indicators based on acidity and various other engine factors end up changing their oil around 10k mark on DINO, yes read that right, DINO oil. On the other hand claiming Amsoil is the end all oil is nonsense. 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.

Let me present a final perspective on products that claim to save you money at the same time save the world. Suppose Tim Vipond made us all believers and we all reverted to Amsoil (this is impossible but lets assume that is it true). We all give big companies like Mobil the middle finger and switch our car's diet from changing the oil in our cars at 25,000miles instead of say 5,000miles (sorry RobertC). With Amsoil's claim of better engine protection, etc etc now our cars are running better, less gunk, less problems, less visits to the quick lube and the garage for Engine, transmission repairs, etc. We now consume 5 times less the motor oil as before and Dino oil is a thing of the past and synthetic reigns king. This saved us the money and also saves the Earth from unnecessary oil pollution and oil production. What is the consequence of such an action? Big oil takes a big hit, job loss there, quick lubes find little or no business even if they attempt to change Amsoil they would be down 5 times in frequency of customer visits, garages get less business engine related, job loss. Where does the money then go if we all use Amsoil? Albert J. Amatuzio and all the Direct Jobbers of the Month while a group of hopeless individuals who see Amsoil as the best thing since a slice of bread busts their butt to try to earn a pretty penny off of commissions.

MLM and let a few group of elites who have been in the game longer than everyone else win or allow the small local garages, national chains, and big oil dominate?

It is a hard call but those who truly claim that they want to save the Earth should quit using oil all together and get an electric car or the next best thing. (Coal,gas,Nuclear vs. Petroleum)

The debate goes on but I want to see more arguments backed up with REAL NUMBERS and not this "I use Amsoil/Mobil 1 and I think you should use it too." Give me a break.
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
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
[I don't doubt the product as I am a retired Shell Oil chemist.


Phew! Now I can finally sleep at night. Can Amsoil just do a test on every level and kill all the other oils out there and be done with it? I don't see such a test with Amsoil winning in all categories.

So entertain me on this notion: What happens if you run 25,000 miles or 1 year which ever comes last? (i.e. if over one year run until 25k or more with UOA) The point is the SELL the oil and to cover one's own rear end by putting a safe warranty period. In reality if a Dino oil can go beyond 3000miles how much can Amsoil be pushed? This is advisable only under UOA as claimed by Amsoil but I am sure 30k is not unreasonable. Then what about 35k? You sell less when people use the oil for longer, period. You make even more money by having a UOA lab take tells people they need to change the oil when in reality the testing mechanism is so inconsistent with oil from the same batch that they had no clue themselves! This is America! Come on! Money, money, money!

I am surprised Mr.Synlube (Miro Kefurt) didn't chime in to promote his product the never changing oil and filter (that is basically a old Amsoil pre-EaO). What is the point of Amsoil when you can use a oil that never needs changing but only additional additives and periodic filter replacement?

Synlube is brought into consideration because you representing Amsoil knocks on all the "inferior" oils and since Synlube claims to be better than oils that need changing it is then the "superior" oil to Amsoil.
Last edited by ebolamonkey
Ebola, you misinterpret my intentions. Or I'm stupid waiting for my day shift guy to show....

I do NOT advocate or believe in short oil changes except under conditions where a manufacturer is noted for claiming out of warranty issues. And once that warranty is up, I'll extend the hell outta it.

In short, I'll glady go 25,000. Glady, I hate changing oil.

I won't do so with inferior products.

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.
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:

Synlube is brought into consideration because you representing Amsoil knocks on all the "inferior" oils and since Synlube claims to be better than oils that need changing it is then the "superior" oil to Amsoil.


No oil really needs to be changed until it can no longer perform it's functions. A used oil analysis can determine this. However, most oil warranties (except AMSOIL) will put a limit on mileage or time even with a UAO. Some have gone as high as 400,000 miles on an AMSOIL oil change.
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
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.
Ebola -I admire your iconoclastic tendencies, but must take issue with a few points:

The days when cars lasted 50,000 - 100,000 miles ended with point ignition and twice-a-year tune-ups. Modern vehicles are just getting broken in at 100K.

Lubes are not why oil prices and supply are volatile. A 42-gallon barrel of crude typically produces about a quart of lube basestock. One of the best arguments in favor of moving away from petroleum-based fuels is to save those molecules for lubes & chemical products. A typical barrel of crude is 20% 'natural gasoline', but we tweak another 30+% into fuels. It's an amazingly valuable mineral that has a finite (if unknown) supply remaining and we're burning it for fuel? If passenger car fuels moved away from petroleum, refinery engineers would just twiddle the dials (and modify units during turnaround) to align the product mix with demand.

Otherwise, nicely done.
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
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 isn't the only filter manufacturer with a product development function. Everyone has their own version of state-of-the-art. Some of them may be quite similar, move a methyl group along the chain or rotate an ester to a different carbon on an aromatic ring and voila - a molecule that acts in a very similar manner but is not covered by the other guy's patent.

As for extending drains though UOA monitoring:
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. This sort of activity makes perfect sense in an industrial environment, particularly in industries like utilities steel, mining & paper, where down time is anathema. But pulling samples, shipping them off, spending money on quick-&-dirty auto-flagged analyses that can as easily mislead as illuminate when you only think you know what you're looking at? I don't see where that adds value.

I haven't seen UOA prices recently, but it used to be about a wash - the cost of the analysis ran about as much as the oil & filter, pulling a good, representative sample is only slightly less work than changing the whole charge. I just don't see the benefit.

You might impress your gearhead buddies with this UOA report on a sample that may not be representative and was possibly mis-flagged by a computer that was reading carry-over from a prior sample (very common in assembly-line style UOA testing), which you may have further mis-interpreted because you don't understand the difference between developmental, product certification and UOA testing, but I don't see where it keeps your grocery-getter on the road any longer than just changing the oil for about the same cost & effort. When you change your oil, you know the condition that same day. (It's brand-new!) You'll get the UOA report in a couple of days, and you'll know the condition of the oil after you've run three or four more samples and have gotten an idea of the trend line...

UOA testing involves cutting a lot of corners. There is a lot of bias and contamination. The data is only useful for trend analysis, no individual datum should be relied on as being remotely close to an assigned test value. I've had to peel a few customers off of the ceiling after a scary UOA report, looking in deeper than the scary red, block-lettered alert at the top, finding the anomaly, and saying: "These two data don't make sense together, it looks like carry-over, as long as the machine is running normally, submit a new sample and call me back when you get that result." Usually I'd get a relieved call back (or no call back, as they'd moved on to other issues).

It's motor oil that is going to be in the engine for months, not circulating oil that is going to be in a steam turbine for decades. Try to maintain a little perspective.
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!
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
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
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:

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
Yes, you seem to be confused. Look at the much smaller diameter, closer together nanofibers, compared to the much larger wide spread microfibers in the second photograph. The nanofibers would clearly filter smaller and more particles, yet allow more flow than the microfibers. That is how the AMSOIL synthetic nanofiber filters smaller particles and for up to 25,000 miles, compared to cellulose microfibers which are often recommended to be changed at 3,000 miles (such as PureONE). PureONE stands to sell up to 8 filters, whereas AMSOIL might only sell one for the same mileage.
"Yes, you seem to be confused. Look at the much smaller diameter, closer together nanofibers, compared to the much larger wide spread microfibers in the second photograph. The nanofibers would clearly filter smaller and more particles, yet allow more flow than the microfibers. That is how the AMSOIL synthetic nanofiber filters smaller particles and for up to 25,000 miles, compared to cellulose microfibers which are often recommended to be changed at 3,000 miles (such as PureONE). PureONE stands to sell up to 8 filters, whereas AMSOIL might only sell one for the same mileage."

Tim, do you mean the DONALDSON synthetic nanofiber filters that AMSOIL sells?
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
Yes, you seem to be confused. Look at the much smaller diameter, closer together nanofibers, compared to the much larger wide spread microfibers in the second photograph. The nanofibers would clearly filter smaller and more particles, yet allow more flow than the microfibers. That is how the AMSOIL synthetic nanofiber filters smaller particles and for up to 25,000 miles, compared to cellulose microfibers which are often recommended to be changed at 3,000 miles (such as PureONE). PureONE stands to sell up to 8 filters, whereas AMSOIL might only sell one for the same mileage.


If I am confused then you are delusional. If the nanomedia is that fine then how does it last 25,000 without clogging up? From what I see the whole point of having a fine web is to catch smaller particles. What happens when large particles comes along? Well since they are not smaller than the holes in the web they are caught or you can say well they somehow can be bypassed but that is stupid because the whole point of the filter is to filter and not let things get through. So then you can say well Amsoil's filter has a lot of medium but so does PureONE?

To answer some of my questions above it seems that it is a progressive filter:
http://minimopar.knizefamily.n.../reference.html#hd01

Hey look, that is another filter manufactured by Donaldson! Hmmm! Technology sharing? Noooo way If that filter is so good (HD01) then why is it discontinued? Hmmm...

Here is where you got 3,000mile change but finish the sentence:
http://www.purolatorautofilter...reoneoilfilters.aspx

"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."

Most car manuals specify 5000-7500 mile oil change interval so does that mean all of a sudden magically PureONE works twice as well? Purolator is really Bosch and being Bosch and connected with the industry do you think they can put some ridiculous oil change interval on there even though it can go up to a certain amount of miles? No. The point of the industry, this one, is to stay in business and sell more filters and the point of Amsoil's market scheme is to steal customers away from the former but still attempting to make a pretty penny in the process and the ever lower margin of profit.

Just because Amsoil says I can do 25,000miles or 1 year which ever comes first no problem I can all of a sudden trust that for ANY given gasoline car driven at ANY given conditions in ANY driving style be it a turbo/super/combined charged car or the Honda CR-X? Just because PureONE tells me to change 3,000 then I read my car manual and it says 7500 or maybe even 10,000 miles that should then change at those intervals? You've got to be kidding me. What if a driver feels like only doing 3,000miles a year on the EaO? Should we change filters then (funny because it's at 3000miles) or keep driving? If so then EaO just became the victim of your own rampage against the marketing claims of other filters.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
Yes, you seem to be confused. Look at the much smaller diameter, closer together nanofibers, compared to the much larger wide spread microfibers in the second photograph. The nanofibers would clearly filter smaller and more particles, yet allow more flow than the microfibers. That is how the AMSOIL synthetic nanofiber filters smaller particles and for up to 25,000 miles, compared to cellulose microfibers which are often recommended to be changed at 3,000 miles (such as PureONE). PureONE stands to sell up to 8 filters, whereas AMSOIL might only sell one for the same mileage.


If I am confused then you are delusional. If the nanomedia is that fine then how does it last 25,000 without clogging up? From what I see the whole point of having a fine web is to catch smaller particles. What happens when large particles comes along? Well since they are not smaller than the holes in the web they are caught or you can say well they somehow can be bypassed but that is stupid because the whole point of the filter is to filter and not let things get through. So then you can say well Amsoil's filter has a lot of medium but so does PureONE?
. You still seem to be confused. The larger particles just sit on top of the nanofibers and still allows oil flow around it into the many pores available.

quote:

Just because Amsoil says I can do 25,000miles or 1 year which ever comes first no problem I can all of a sudden trust that for ANY given gasoline car driven at ANY given conditions in ANY driving style be it a turbo/super/combined charged car or the Honda CR-X? Just because PureONE tells me to change 3,000 then I read my car manual and it says 7500 or maybe even 10,000 miles that should then change at those intervals? You've got to be kidding me. What if a driver feels like only doing 3,000miles a year on the EaO? Should we change filters then (funny because it's at 3000miles) or keep driving? If so then EaO just became the victim of your own rampage against the marketing claims of other filters.
AMSOIL says: "Service Life
AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters are guaranteed for 25,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first, when used in conjunction with AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oil. AMSOIL recommends changing the oil filter at the time of oil change.

If used in conjunction with AMSOIL Motor Oil that is being changed at intervals less than 25,000 miles, the EaO Filter should be changed at the same time. AMSOIL EaO Filters are not guaranteed for 25,000 miles when used with any oil other than AMSOIL Motor Oil and should be changed according to vehicle OEM recommendations."

For AMSOIL's motor oil:

"SERVICE LIFE
AMSOIL Synthetic 0W-20 Motor Oil is recommended for extended drain intervals in unmodified(1), mechanically sound(2) gasoline-fueled vehicles as follows:

• Normal Service(3) – Up to 25,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first.

• Severe Service(4) – Up to 15,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first.

• Replace AMSOIL Ea Oil Filter at the time of oil change, up to 25,000 miles or one year service life, whichever comes first (other brands at standard OEM* intervals).

• In all non-gasoline fueled vehicle applications, extend the oil change interval according to oil analysis or follow the OEM* drain interval.

*OEM – Original Equipment Manufacturer

(1) Engines operating under modified conditions are excluded from extended drain recommendations. Examples include the use of performance computer chips; non-OEM approved exhaust, fuel or air induction systems; and the use of fuels other than those recommended for normal operation by the manufacturer.

(2) Mechanically sound engines are in good working condition and do not, for example, leak oil or consume excessive amounts, are not worn out, do not overheat, do not leak anti-freeze and have properly working emission control systems. AMSOIL recommends repairing malfunctioning engines prior to the installation of AMSOIL synthetic oils.

(3) Personal vehicles frequently traveling greater than 10 miles (16 km) at a time and not operating under severe service.

(4) Turbo or supercharged vehicles, commercial or fleet vehicles, excessive engine idling, first and subsequent use of AMSOIL in vehicles with over 100,000 miles, daily short trip driving less than 10 miles (16k), frequent towing, plowing, hauling or dusty condition
driving."
Last edited by timvipond
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?
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
You still seem to be confused. The larger particles just sit on top of the nanofibers and still allows oil flow around it into the many pores available.


Filters design for water filters is similar to filter design for oil filters. We were talking about activated carbon in class one day and the applications and one of the various applications is making water filters. The Professor talked about surface treating the activated carbon matrix to create macro and then micro pores to allow particles (contaminants) to be trapped in this filter media. During the activation phase the surface of the carbon matrix forms a macro pore opening which goes into the matrix to taper off into a micro pore forming "cracks" on the surface of the matrix. So I asked the Prof what would happen if macro size particles keeps coming into the filter to block the opening and therefore stopping the micro size particles from getting trapped and he said in response that usually you have a multi-stage filtration system so that the macro size particles are trapped before exposing the flow to the micro filtration step.

From my last post I said that the Donaldson discontinued filter uses a multi-stage filtration process within one filter. This would mean that with the limited size available in the filter housing the filter needs to be able to trap larger particles first and then the smaller particles later.



Assuming that the web like design is uniform for the entire synthetic media the multi-stage filtration is then not possible as the large particles would start to clog the "nano" web forcing the filter to go into bypass mode. Large particles would large particles would first bombard the web and then subsequently particles of all sizes would start to find the path of least resistance until more large particles comes along to block up more of the nano webbing. Eventually medium size particles would start to form between large particles, so on and so forth, until the web is so inundated with particles that the filter is forced into bypass.

One way to counter this is to form a media that has cellulose sheath (outer surface) and a progressive nanoweb core (inner surface). This would allow large particles to be filtered before entering the nano web which then allows the nano web to do its advertised job of collecting nano-sized particles. The problem still exists in this case with large size particles filling up the sheath thereby blocking to flow as you move toward the center of the filter. Having a nano sheath and a cellulose core makes no sense so that scenario is thrown out.

Either way it doesn't seem like the nano-web can have a longer than average (25,000 vs claimed 3000 miles) drain interval when it has a fine net that is design to clog fast.

If you don't know please say so and ask the Amsoil engineer politely via e-mail. I know I've done it and I got bogus answers when I did but perhaps you can have better luck with them as you are still a dealer.
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.
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?
I gave this a lot of thought. My guess is in order for the Amsoil filter to last 25,000 miles it isn't filtering as well as a Pure One or Mobil 1 filter. It is not trapping the smaller stuff. Now some might say the smaller stuff is harmless, at least that is what I'd say if I was selling those filters. Me I'd take the filter that traps the most stuff, and change it more often. No point in filtering out big stuff, leaving small stuff so the filter will last longer.

OK flamers, torch me.

LOL
AD
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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
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!"
EaO filters are fine filters. I have them on all three cars for extended OCI's. I sell a fair number. Other than that, I don't really don't do filter battles. Too many ambiguous measuring methods, too many claims from Fram. It's a freaking disposable oil filter, not a portable thermonuclear device or an immobile heart monitor.
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
Tim - Fred Astair had nothing on you; you dance dance around, hitting your intended marks and avoiding the soft spots at will. Donaldson is the best because they know the most about their own technology? Fram is no good because they aren't experts on Donaldson's technology?

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

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

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

Thay never publish data where they can be criticized.

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

That is cherry picking.


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


they aren't on here trying to dispute it.


So then you admit that Amsoil DOES indeed cherry pick data!
quote:

So then you admit that Amsoil DOES indeed cherry pick data!


I never said that. AND You know it.

Tell me this, why is it that Amsoil bugs you so much? Such hatred? Just pure hate. Give it a rest. If you don't like the product, don't use it. Arguing about a product you will never use is about as dumb as a bag of hammers.
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:

So then you admit that Amsoil DOES indeed cherry pick data!


I never said that. AND You know it.

Tell me this, why is it that Amsoil bugs you so much? Such hatred? Just pure hate. Give it a rest. If you don't like the product, don't use it. Arguing about a product you will never use is about as dumb as a bag of hammers.


First of all I suggest that you read the entire thread before making such remarks. If you did you should know that I used to be a Amsoil dealer myself primarily because I wanted the discount rates. I quit because I don't believe what I sell and I don't believe it is a economical solution for the claimed benefits when one has to pay a membership fee, shipping and state sales tax.

Secondly, if the consumers blindly accept marketing statements without question, which is what you are implying, then we would be in a heap of trouble. It isn't about love or hate but proof of statements and the pursuit of truth. If the endeavor for truth is considered hatred then I guess in this age of discovery and science we are truly a hate filled society!

Finally, if you notice the last part of the quote was written by RobertC and my reply was to his remark not yours. I am saying that he admits that all companies cherry pick numbers for marketing and Amsoil is no different which is why he believes that "we" aren't arguing against YOUR statement of "And this differs from any other oil company in what way? " Who wouldn't cherry pick numbers for marketing claims?
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:


First of all I suggest that you read the entire thread before making such remarks. If you did you should know that I used to be a Amsoil dealer myself primarily because I wanted the discount rates. I quit because I don't believe what I sell and I don't believe it is a economical solution for the claimed benefits when one has to pay a membership fee, shipping and state sales tax.

Secondly, if the consumers blindly accept marketing statements without question, which is what you are implying, then we would be in a heap of trouble. It isn't about love or hate but proof of statements and the pursuit of truth. If the endeavor for truth is considered hatred then I guess in this age of discovery and science we are truly a hate filled society!

Finally, if you notice the last part of the quote was written by RobertC and my reply was to his remark not yours. I am saying that he admits that all companies cherry pick numbers for marketing and Amsoil is no different which is why he believes that "we" aren't arguing against YOUR statement of "And this differs from any other oil company in what way? " Who wouldn't cherry pick numbers for marketing claims?


1) I've actually read the entire thread. Long, and loony. If you don't believe in a product, fine. I don't get the state sales tax thing, others oils/companies don't charge tax in your state, but Amsoil does?

2) I never said you should "blindly accept marketing statements", I just think people should pursue truth equally. It seems as if statements such as RobertC's aren't applied across the board - seems like extra special scrutiny on Amsoil. Far more crazy claims are made by Pennzoil, Castrol, etc....

3) Gotcha - I took that wrong. I thought you were responding to my comment. Sorry.
Robert & Ebola - I admire your valiant efforts, but at a certain point you have to tell yourself: "Amsoil is not just a compounder-blender; it is also a cult and these guys clearly drank the Kool-Aid and are currently sucking on the ice cubes they fished from the pitcher."

I personally just tweak them out of morbid curiousity and for my personal amusement.
IMO if you're looking to filter the oil and get the most junk out go with either a Pure One or a Mobil 1 filter. If you want to run oil for 25,000 miles use the Amsoil filter. Just be careful if you have a Toyota engine running an Amsoil filter too long, it appears there is a TSB about it. At least I read that somewhere.

I'd rather get the most dirt out of my engine so I pass on the Amsoil filters. JMO

AD
Particle Count Data Point: P1 vs EaO
Ericm Offline


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

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

Filter__P1___________EaO

Miles
on
Filter_4042___________549

Miles
On Oil_4042__________4591

Make up
Oil_____1.0 qt________none

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

Fe
Debris_____15__________15

ISO______21/13_______21/13

Particle
Volume_____2__________2

Anti
Freeze____Pos*_______Trace*

Water_____Pos**_______Neg

Fuel_______Neg________Neg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Filter__P1___________EaO

Miles
on
Filter_4042___________549

Miles
On Oil_4042__________4591

Make up
Oil_____1.0 qt________none

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

Fe
Debris_____15__________15

ISO______21/13_______21/13

Particle
Volume_____2__________2

Anti
Freeze____Pos*_______Trace*

Water_____Pos**_______Neg

Fuel_______Neg________Neg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments welcome.


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

Over the long haul, the Donaldson/amsoil is superior! Imagine what it is doing at its half life. Moreover,why even bother with the P1,why not use the Bosch distance instead,...rated at 300% capacity and 99% efficient. Yes, it costs more up front like the amsoil.

The Amsoil is a microglass depth filter, and the P1/bosch is synthetic and does not flow as well.

These filters are two different animals,with the glass being far superior!
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Trying to learn so go easy fellas. If the results were mistakenly contaminated what good are the test results?

AD


P1>>EaO

The metals aside from Fe and Al are just additives in the oil. On particle count P1 beats EaO.

On the BITOG thread Mobil 1 beats EaO. P1 will be tested next.


No it doesn't. All you've done is just prove your bias for all to read. Please precisely and clearly HOW YOU came to that conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
Over the long haul, the Donaldson/amsoil is superior! Imagine what it is doing at its half life. Moreover,why even bother with the P1,why not use the Bosch distance instead,...rated at 300% capacity and 99% efficient. Yes, it costs more up front like the amsoil.

The Amsoil is a microglass depth filter, and the P1/bosch is synthetic and does not flow as well.

These filters are two different animals,with the glass being far superior!


Glass was pre-EaO which is what Synlube filter is now.

Bosch owns P1.
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
No it doesn't. All you've done is just prove your bias for all to read. Please precisely and clearly HOW YOU came to that conclusion.


Particle count. For the purposes of filtration P1 and M1 does a better job vs. EaO. For duration of 25k miles is another story but for the general oil change interval of 5k-10k P1 and M1 is far superior.
Last edited by ebolamonkey
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
No it doesn't. All you've done is just prove your bias for all to read. Please precisely and clearly HOW YOU came to that conclusion.


Particle count. For the purposes of filtration P1 and M1 does a better job vs. EaO. For duration of 25k miles is another story but for the general oil change interval of 5k-10k P1 and M1 is far superior.


That is what I read as well. For the shorter OCI the P1 or M1 filter does a better job. I saw testing on a site by a member and his data backed it up. Even if I were to run an oil for 15,000 miles I'd rather use a Pure 1 filter and change it out at 7,500 miles than run the Amsoil filter the full 15,000 miles. Wish I could find the results.

AD
quote:


That is what I read as well. For the shorter OCI the P1 or M1 filter does a better job. I saw testing on a site by a member and his data backed it up. Even if I were to run an oil for 15,000 miles I'd rather use a Pure 1 filter and change it out at 7,500 miles than run the Amsoil filter the full 15,000 miles. Wish I could find the results.

AD


Please post the data. I would love to see it. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
Have any of you folks ever run a particle counter, AKA The Magic Eight-Ball?



Technique counts!

How was the sample drawn?
Flush volume?
New tubing?
Was the bottle clean or super clean?
How was the sample agitated at the lab?
Can the machine distinguish water and entrained air?

I've toyed, on a minor level, with a Laser-Net Fines.

I'm trying to buy my own.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...Number=915831&page=1

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeCLS:


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

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

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

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

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

But wait there's more...

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

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

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT!!


Doesn't mean Amsoil is any better. Smile

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I use them for some things, not others.

And Lamont is right. Thay can be meaningless.

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

But try this,

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

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

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

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

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

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT!!


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

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

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

Everything your company now sells is outdated, except your trans and diff fluid, your grease is still top notch, your powersteering fluid is awesome, but your oil's and oil filters are not up to par.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
Pablo, the Amsoil Salesman, if the Particle Count looked better for Amsoil you would be running with it, but since it does not you just make excuses.

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

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

Everything your company now sells is outdated, except your trans and diff fluid, your grease is still top notch, your powersteering fluid is awesome, but your oil's and oil filters are not up to par.


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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Paul
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
Pablo, the Amsoil Salesman, if the Particle Count looked better for Amsoil you would be running with it, but since it does not you just make excuses.

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

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

Everything your company now sells is outdated, except your trans and diff fluid, your grease is still top notch, your powersteering fluid is awesome, but your oil's and oil filters are not up to par.


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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Paul


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

I don't see any inconsistencies in the photographs. Micro fibers can range from 1000 to 1 microns, Nanofibers can range from 1000 to 1 nanometers. Different references could be comparing different sizes and media.
Last edited by timvipond
Cellulose media has a wide variance in pour distribution. The synthetic medias ..especially the Nanofiber and SYNTEQ processes merely spin/spray a web of filaments that provide depth. Enough filaments, higher numbers/longer life.

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

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

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

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

AD
So the highly flow restrictive PureONE failed at only 5,000 miles/six months and has no media reinforcement? Seems like Purolator's 3,000 mile/3 month recommendation shoul