A comparison of Mobil 1 and Amsoil EaO oil Filters

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is an odd statement. How many PM's did you send the OP Gary?
LOL.gif
I know how many I sent!

If we are jumping to conclusions, maybe postulate why the wear rates in PPM stayed so very steady (this is a good thing, BTW) AND maybe bring up the "Bob No Filter Necessary" theory.....ie an oil filter is only there to catch the big hunks when the engine goes to handbasket.
 
If the Mobil 1 performed "better", it might be because of Mobil's 99,2% efficiency or efficiency claim. "With a 99.2 percent efficiency rating (under SAE J1858 Multi-Pass Efficiency Test"

M1 Filter FAQ... please scroll down.

I hate to be given a percentage with no micron size. Is it likely that the SAE J1858 is a 10 micron test if nothing else is specified?

If you would ask me, I would say the EAO filters like a 98,7%@15micron filter has to. The "equal" pore size might allow all the small particles to pass through, though.


Also: What is it that makes up these particles, wear, dust, carbon, or sludge?

I think you all know these Donaldson vs. Fleetguard bulletins, battling about the best micron ratings vs. the ability to filter "real world" contaminants. Fleetguard states that real world contaminantion consists of >90% or so organic material, which "full synthetic" media filters alone cannot remove from the oil. In the Cummins M11 engine test, their "venturi" LF9009 (stacked disc cellulose bypass and StrataPore full flow combination) removed 3 times as much "real world" stuff than the Donaldson ELF7300.

http://www.cumminsfiltration.com/pdfs/product_lit/americas_brochures/LT15088.pdf

The FF part of the LF9009 is half as big as the ELF7300. Drawing 5-10% of the oil flow through the cellulose discs will actually remove another 400 gram organic stuff from the oil. What's happening to the Donaldson, is it unable to filter or just by-passing because it's getting plugged?

I believe Fleetguards stacked disc bypass setup is 74% efficient at 3 micron, I don't know whether it is multi or single pass though. The FF part of the LF9009 is actually tiny, considering it is suited for a Cummins N14 engine. In other words, the FF-part can't be anything "efficient".

What is "considered" organic contaminants, hydro-carbons only or is soot/carbon included here?

Sorry if it's getting too much off-topic. But we might have a "real world" issue here.
 
Interesting particle data. Also interesting is that the apparent superiority of the Mobil filter is not reflected in the UOA wear metals (Pb, Sn, Al, etc). In your engine at least, over 5000 miles, neither filter is better than the other at reducing engine wear.
 
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Interesting particle data. Also interesting is that the apparent superiority of the Mobil filter is not reflected in the UOA wear metals (Pb, Sn, Al, etc). In your engine at least, over 5000 miles, neither filter is better than the other at reducing engine wear.


That's my point. I would now love to see the same ~5K with NO oil filter. And a $1.99 filter.
 
Originally Posted By: Extreme-Duty
If the Mobil 1 performed "better", it might be because of Mobil's 99,2% efficiency or efficiency claim. "With a 99.2 percent efficiency rating (under SAE J1858 Multi-Pass Efficiency Test"

M1 Filter FAQ... please scroll down.

I hate to be given a percentage with no micron size. Is it likely that the SAE J1858 is a 10 micron test if nothing else is specified?

If you would ask me, I would say the EAO filters like a 98,7%@15micron filter has to. The "equal" pore size might allow all the small particles to pass through, though.


Also: What is it that makes up these particles, wear, dust, carbon, or sludge?

I think you all know these Donaldson vs. Fleetguard bulletins, battling about the best micron ratings vs. the ability to filter "real world" contaminants. Fleetguard states that real world contaminantion consists of >90% or so organic material, which "full synthetic" media filters alone cannot remove from the oil. In the Cummins M11 engine test, their "venturi" LF9009 (stacked disc cellulose bypass and StrataPore full flow combination) removed 3 times as much "real world" stuff than the Donaldson ELF7300.

http://www.cumminsfiltration.com/pdfs/product_lit/americas_brochures/LT15088.pdf

The FF part of the LF9009 is half as big as the ELF7300. Drawing 5-10% of the oil flow through the cellulose discs will actually remove another 400 gram organic stuff from the oil. What's happening to the Donaldson, is it unable to filter or just by-passing because it's getting plugged?

I believe Fleetguards stacked disc bypass setup is 74% efficient at 3 micron, I don't know whether it is multi or single pass though. The FF part of the LF9009 is actually tiny, considering it is suited for a Cummins N14 engine. In other words, the FF-part can't be anything "efficient".

What is "considered" organic contaminants, hydro-carbons only or is soot/carbon included here?

Sorry if it's getting too much off-topic. But we might have a "real world" issue here.


Good point sir!

And you have brought up an interesting point....

In Cummins' own 10-micron version of the SAE test, the Donaldson SYNTEQ media out-filters the stratopore media at both flow rates.

So then we end up with the "real world" tests performed by Cummins showing that their hybrid filters perform better in "real life", regardless to what the "ratings" for each filter show in the SAE testing.

Of course the hybrid filters are not available for any automotive applications, so we are stepping a bit outside of our area here but the point is quite valid as to what these numbers actually MEAN and as to how the SAE numbers correlate to real-world performance.

In terms of wear numbers.... It would appear.... they do not... ?
 
Ok, with the popularity of this thread, you all have inspired me...Assuming I can scrape up enough $$ to continue this experiment (donations cheerfully accepted!), there are three choices I am willing to try - and I am willing to accept the consensus of the board here to help me choose:

1) Continue the test "as is" to obtain additional samples, using the same filters and the same lab (Blackstone) so that more data is obtained

2) Continue the test with Blackstone Labs, but choose a different filter. I get to pick the filter, though!

3) Continue the test, with a different lab (I'm thinking Analysts, Inc., because I've used them before) but continuing with the same filters.

Which of these three options does this board collectively prefer? You can send me Private messages if you prefer - I will summarize all responses and post the decision to this thread. I'll give everyone two weeks to respond - so get your vote to me by COB 10/20/08....
 
Well, why not find a lab that will do the PC with some other method than the pore blockage thingie.
 
I think it would be wrong to switch labs at this point... It would just be another point to argue.

I like choice #2.
 
Originally Posted By: btanchors


3) Continue the test, with a different lab (I'm thinking Analysts, Inc., because I've used them before) but continuing with the same filters..........


Don't do this, because it just throws a new variable into the mix, and makes data interpretation even more inconclusive
 
Choice #2.

Keeping the same filter =
18.gif


Absolutely don't switch labs - that would be a huge variable - as would extending the interval. I think the best choice from a research standpoint to get the most out of your existing data - switching the filter invalidates the least amount of existing data.
 
Originally Posted By: JonnyHotcakes
This actually just makes me curious about other Champion Labs filters.

The K&N is often touted as having superior filter media to the M1. If The M1 performs so well (and regardless of if it is actually superior to the AMSoil filter), does this mean that the K&N can be expected to perform even better?



That may be true for the K&N air filters, but the photos I have seen of the dissected Mobil 1 and K&N oil filters leads me to believe they are virtually identical.
 
I've read several oil filter studies that found the KN and M1 to be completely identical.

I humbly suggest that if choice #2 is the way you go, please do a pureone and a wix, then the 'winner' of those two takes on the M1.
 
Originally Posted By: Spector
Been saying this for years, oil filters are a useless appendage on todays engines with todays oils!!!!!


Spector - I think I see the light.
 
Quote:

2) Continue the test with Blackstone Labs, but choose a different filter. I get to pick the filter, though!


Try the lowest cost filter you can get.

Also, construct a filter with no element.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Do you think they are testing oil filters correctly?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Mewbs
J
New Amsoil EA15K13 different than Fram Endurance from 2023
Replies
6
Views
654
Chevy454z71
BrendanC
Virgin C&P Comparison Between: Mobil 1 M1-206a, Fram Force FF3675, Fram Drive FD3675, Microguard Select MSL51522 and STP XL S3675XL
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
redhat
S
Two Mobil oil filters C&P M1-301A and M1-104A
2
Replies
24
Views
768
BornSlippy
BrendanC
Mobil 1 m1-113a 5,872 miles, mobil 1 5w-30 EP HM
Replies
11
Views
1K
Sayjac
Back
Top